gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
which then did persecute the church of God in some places in generall the citie of the diuel that is to saye the whole body of the reprobat Bristowe asketh if it be not a perillous point to touch the citie of Rome in saint Iohns time when it did persecute the church of Rome As though S. Iohn telleth a storie of his owne time and not a prophecy of the time to come Ambrose therfore or whosoeuer writeth that coÌ„mentarie interpreteth that prophecy Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the citie of Rome which was not onely of persecution but of seduction But the vndoubted Ambrose if you remember sayeth Bristowe of the church of Rome sayeth In al things I couet to followe the Romane church De sac lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bounde to followe the church of Rome he sayeth immediately after Sed tamen nos homine sensum habemus c. But yet we being men haue vnderstanding Therefore that which is more rightly obserued elsewhere we also do rightly obserue We follow the Apostle Peter him selfe we sticke vnto his deuotion what doth the church of Rome answere to this Verily Peter him selfe which was a priest of the church of Rome is author to vs of this assertion In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in that they vsed not to wash mens feete in baptisme Vniustly indeede he vrgeth that ceremonie as necessarie but yet he sheweth that his iudgement was that the church of Rome might receiue a custome contrarie to yâ— scripture Beside this saith Bristow he calleth Peter the first the foundation in the verie same place where say you Pur. 320 he affirmeth that Peter is not the foundation Howsoeuer I deale with my reader you deale vnfaithfully with me for my wordes are these He affirmeth the not Peter but the faith the confession of Peter is the foundation of the church and that the primacy of Peter was a primacie of faith not of honour of confession not of autoritie or higher order De incaern dom Ca. 4. 5. Ambrose his words are Cap. 4. Vos autem c. But what do you say of mee Immediatly Peter being not vnmindful of his place he exercised the primacy The primacie of confessing truely not of honor the primacie of faith not of order or degree And Cap. 5. Faith is the foundation of the church For it was not said of Peters flesh but of his faith that the gates of death shal not preuailc against it his confession ouercommeth hel The former of these places Brist corrupteth by adding this worde worldly to the words of Ambrose honor degree aâ— though Ambrose had meant that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor degree being equal to his fellowes in worldly honour and degree But such folly was farr froÌ„ Ambrose to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor degree when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignitie at all But he expresseth wherein all his primacie was when he sayeth he was first in confession first in protestation of his faith not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellowes who all helde the same faith and confession And this of Peters person neuer a worde of his successours which yet are not onely the bishops of Rome when they were at the best but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles Hierom Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places in which the Apostles sat in person but by authoritie of teaching receiued from them with soundnes of doctrine To the later place Bristow saith the diuel may preuaile against the fleshe of a Pope but his faith but his confession as well in all articles that be nowe in coÌ„trouersie as in those at that time wil stand when they shall all be sonke downe into their due place But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of euery bishop of Romes faith and confession but onely of the singular faith and confession of Peter Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God which is against all sectes and heresies Dies me citius c. the day should sooner faile mee then the names of heretikes and diuers sectes Yet this faith is generall against them all that Christ is the sonne of God both sempiternall of his father and also borne of the virgine Let nowe the reader iudge whether of vs hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose Fourthly he gathereth that I saye in diuerse places that Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Alexandrinus Cyprianus the Councell of Africa and Socrates the historiographer did preach or write against the Popes authoritie when it first began to aduance it selfe in Victor Cornelius Stephanus Anastasius Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus To this Bristow answereth First that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church therfore I am against my selfe in making other Popes to be antichrist for claiming such authoritie as these did Whereto I replye the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discouer the mysterie of iniquitie those later Popes that are antichrists did openly shewe them selues in the temple of God as God and therefore great difference Secondly Bristowe answereth that all those writers did communicate with those Popes therefore our separation cannot be excused I replye their ambitious vsurpation tended not to heresie and therfore they were content to admonish them but the latter Popes from whome we dissent are fallen into open heresie and apostasie Thirdly he saith that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authoritie as he wil shewe of Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Cyprian Cap. 10. in 28. demaunde where I will shewe that they did write against such vniust authoritie as those bishops did claime Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place hee sayeth that hee exhorteth Cornelius to bee as stout in not loosing certeine African heretikes as their owne bishop had beene in bynding of them By which hee woulde haue men thinke that Cornelius had authoritie to vndoe that which Cyprian had done as the Pope in these dayes taketh vpon him But Cyprian yeldeth to no such authoritie but maruelleth that Cornelius was anye thing moued with the threatening of those heretiks to receiue them into his churâ—â— vnder pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediatly of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a fewe heretikes counting it sufficient that Cornelius knewe before that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa saying of their gadding to Rome Cùm statutum sit c. Seing it is decreede of vs all and that it is meete also right that euery mans cause shoulde be heard there wher his crime is committed and a portion of the flock is ascribed to euery pastor which euery one should rule and gouerne as he will giue an account of his doing to the Lord verily they ouer whome we are set must not gad about nor with
found in them 1. Tim. 3. Now commeth Bristowe to answere such things as I obiect out of Augustine against vnwritten traditions which he digesteth into three sorts The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the autority of the canonicall Scripture before all writinges of Catholike Doctours of Bishops of Councels before all customes and traditions But this Bristow denieth to be the question but whether nothing but Scripture be of authoritie I aunswere those places proue that nothing is of infallible veritie but the scriptures therfore they proue that they only are of irrefragable authoritie The second sorte of places are about this question who hath the true Church Of which question I affirme that S. Augustine would haue the Church sought only in the Scriptures And heâ—e he biddeth me reade his first demande likewise I wil send him to mine answer vnto the same At length he confesseth that Augustine is content in that question to set aside all other authorities to trie it by the Scriptures But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question that he neuer sayeth Neither doe we say it or refuse any authoritie that is agreeable to the Scriptures And as that one question which was betweene S. Augustine and the Donatistes was determinable by the onely authorititie of Scriptures so are all questions that are betweene the Church of all times and all heretikes The Donatistes helde that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world except Affrica as the Papistes holde that it is perished out of all partes except a peece of Europa Saint Augustine by the Scripture proueth the continuance in the Churche dispersed ouer all the worlde and that we holde against the Romishe synagogue of Popish Donatistes who haue separated them selues from the Catholike Church into the function of an Italian Priest as the other did of an Affrican But Bristowe sayeth I am as blinde as a beetle in saying that the Papistes did separate themselues from our Church seeing it is certain that Luther did separate him selfe from the Popish Church The like might be said to all them that forsoke the fellowship of any heretikes to come vnto the Churche of God But Bristow is as madde as a marche Hare that bragging so much of the title of the church he is driuen to trie it only by the Scriptures as Augustine calleth vpon the Donatists The other places which I aledge out of Aug saith Bristowe are about al questions with heretikes whatsoeuer As that he would oppresse the Arrian Maximinus with the authoritie of the Nicene councel Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristowe asketh whether he might not presse them with the authoritie thereof as he doth the Donatistes But aske Augustine him selfe who saith he ought not in that case that he charged the Donatistes which it was by their own concession because they allowed it But he saith in the same place the Fathers of the Nicene councell ratified Homousion that is equalitie of the sonne with the father Veritatis autoritate autoritatis veritate by authoritie of trueth and by trueth of authoritie This truth of authoritie Bristowe will haue to be the authoritie of the Nicene councell as though the councel could not erre but then what needed the authoritie of trueth In deede where the councel decreeth with the trueth it is the trueth of authoritie for other authoritie a Councell hath not but of trueth to declare trueth and not to make trueth for if it declare errour as the councell of Arimine did it hath no trueth of authoritie because it hath no authoritie of trueth Moreouer Bristow saith I translate falsely these wordes Nec ego huius autoritate nec tuillius detineris Neither am I bounden to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other Whereas it should be Neither doth the authoritie of the one hold me nor of the other holde thee There is greate difference betweene beeing holden and beeing bound To the bare authoritie of the councell of Nice Maximinus was no more bounden then Augustine to the bare authoritie of Ariminum It was the trueth of Nice that the Arrian was bounde vnto and the falshod of Ariminum that Augustine was not holden with vs. But after the example of Augustine saith Bristowe we will not alledge the councell of Trent as our proper witnesses to our side but the authoritie of Scriptures common to both Witnesse hereof Bristowes motiues where he would ouerthrowe vs by the bare name of Catholike and heretike c. Againe he saith that we make challenge of 600. yeares also And what then Witnesses of trueth we take wheresoeuer they be but authoritie of trueth onely out of the Scriptures Where I said that Augustine setting all other persuasions aside prouoketh onely to the Scriptures to trie the faith and doctrine of the Churche Bristowe answereth Howe true that is appeareth in the same booke De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite For when he hath proued against the Donatistes the Church to be his he saith expressely that to be inough also for all other questions Sufficit nobis It is inough for vs that we haue that Church which is pointed too by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonicall Scriptures De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressely it is inough for all other questions I must needes say expressely you lie For the onely question being how the Donatistes should be receiued if they would come to the Catholike Church as though they were the true Church because baptisme giuen among them was not repeated in the Catholike Church Augustine after much concertation saith Quapropter cum dicatur haereticis c. Wherfore seeing it is said to the heretiks Rightousnes is wanting to you which without charitie and the bonde of peace no man can haue seeing they theÌ„selues confesse that many haue baptisme which haue not righteousnesse and if they would not confesse it the holy Scripture conuinceth them I maruell howe they thinke when we wil not baptise them again hauing not their own but the baptisme of Christ that we do so as though we iudged nothing to be now wanting to theÌ„ that because baptisme is not giuen to them in the Catholike Church which they are founde to haue already they thinke they receiue nothing there where they receiue that without which that which they haue auaileth them to their destruction and not to their saluation Which if they wil not vnderstand it is sufficient for vs that we holde that Church which is shewed forth by most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures Where he speaketh not of the authortie of the Church to determine questions but sheweth it is sufficieÌ„t to haue proued by the Scriptures that they are the true Church although the Heretikes will not vnderstand how baptisme being ministred out of the Church hath not effect but in the true Church for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church that last question
of theirs how they should be receiued though it be not resolued yet can not disprooue them to be the true Church nor proue the Donatists to be the Church seeing there can be but one Where out of this Booke Cap. 16. I shewe that Augustine declareth first that Heretikes must be confuted only by Scriptures secondly that neither councells succession of Bishoppes vniuersality miracles visions dreames nor reuelations are the notes to trie the Catholike Church but only the Scriptures Bristowe saith they are notes with the Scripture as he hath shewed in his demaund I answere whatsoeuer agreeth with the Scripture may well be receiued But the Scripture without all these is sufficient to trie the Church as Augustine sheweth therefore all the rest of Bristowes motiues might be spared if he durst ioyne issue vpon the Scripture only as Augustine doth but that he dare not do He hath a great quarrell of Augustine for translating manifestatur is proued as though Augustine saide that true miracles and visions lacke waight and fashion of iust probation If you call true miracles that are done indeede and not counterfeited I say that all such make no iust probation For God tempteth his Church by such to see if they will forsake his commandement Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeede are ioyned with the truth of doctrine which being tryed by the worde of God to be such confirme it or prepare mens mindes vnto it of themselues neuer sufficient to auouch true doctrine without Gods worde and therefore I will stil tâ—â—nslate manifestatur is manifestly prooued or shewed which is alone Moreouer out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam Cap. 4. I shewed that though consent and vniuersality antiquity succession be good confirmation when they are ioyned with truth yet when trueth is seuered from them it is more to be regarded then they all Bristowe saith that Augustine graunteth not that the truth can be separated from them Yes verily or else he should haue stood vpon that poynt only that truth can not be seuered from those markes which vndoubtedly the Catholique Church had and the Manichees wanted And although he saide the Church had most syncere wisdom yet he saith not that wheresoeuer was antiquity succession c. there must needs be the most syncere wisdome Lastly out of the booke De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affirmed that mans auctority is too weake to carry away so waighty a matter as was in question vsing the wordes of Augustine Auferantur chartae humanae c. Let mens papers be remoued let the voices of God be heard shewe me one place of Scripture for Donatus side c. Bristowe rehearsing the saying more at large as I did Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke vnlesse hee thinketh he hath any vantage in his owne false translation of Acta turning it decrees Surely whether the worde be well or ill translated I seeke no vantage therof and yet if I should change my translations I would rather call Acta actes of the Court or recordes then Courtrolles as you doe But euery man may see what vantage you clasp at among ignorant persons by your false translation of Chartae humanae mens Court papers as though the worde of Augustine were not generall to remoue all mens writings and to vrge only the Scripture But the Church beginning at Hierusalem spreading ouer all Nations to the very last time which Augustine in all places proueth against the Donatists maketh much against vs in Bristowes opinion Nay rather against the Papists which restraine the Church into the Romishe rable which we affirme both is and was alwaies scattered ouer al the world although greater in number at some times then at other some seeing that Mahomet hath infected a greate part of the worlde and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ hath his members that neuer bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha or to the Pope of Rome 3 About certaine traditions The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I saide those oblations with other superstitions fathered vpon tradition of the Apostles by the Nicen other councels as Rhenanus witnesseth are abrogated Bristowe answereth that he speaketh neuer a worde of any other traditions Yet Bristowe confesseth him selfe that many of them are abrogated Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. 5. 4 About the marriage of Votaries The two places one of Epiphanius the other of Hieronyme whiche I cited for the Marriage of Votaries Bristo we sayeth are about a matter which they holde euen as those fathers did But in deede they holde the contrary for they helde the marriage of such lawfull the Papistes dissolue them and say they are no marriages It is better saith Epiphanius to haue one sinne and not many It is better for him that is fallen from his course opeÌ„nly to take a wife according to the lawe and of long time to repent from his virginitie and so to be brought againe to the Church as one that hath done amisse as one that is fallen and broken hauing neede to be bounde rather then to be wounded daily with priuie dartes of that wickednesse which the deuil putteth into him So knoweth the Church to preache these are the medicines of healing Bristowe saith I gather that marriage is an wholsome medicine for such men Contrarie to that I confesse my selfe that he calleth it a sinne But he slaundereth me as he doeth often I saide Epiphanius doth count it an offence to marry because it was a breache of vowe but neither he nor I saide that marâ—iâ—ge is a sinne Bristowe saith likewise the Apostles tradition calleth it a sinne But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof euen as he did me The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt c. The holy Apostles of God haue deliuered that it is a sin after virginity decreed to be turned to marriage They say not marriage is a sinne but by breache of vowe to marrie is a sinne For their sinn cannot pollute the ordinance of God But the wholsome medicines are penance reconciliation saith Bristowe And why not marriage I pray you whatsoeuer is good for the diseased is an wholsom medicine to take a wife openly is good for the diseased therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine As for your distinction of solemne vowe and sole vow is a very bable Epiphanius speaketh generally of al that had vowed virginity To the place of Hierome Ad Demetriadem he answereth that they which of two sinnes will needes committ one they counsell them to committ the lesse rather then the greater But Hierom maketh no comparison of sinnes but saith to such virgins as liued incontinently It must be plainly saide to them that either they should marry if they cannot containe or else they should containe if they will not marry 5. About the reall presence and transubstantiation About these pointes I will not stande considering
authoritie or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles And consequently there is no cause to thinke that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vpon them for departing from that see In the 29. Demaund of Traditions where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians which accused the scriptures of imperfection saying that they are ambiguous and that the trueth can not be found in them by such as knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth c. Bristowe answereth that S. Irenee him selfe as al Catholikes will haue both scripture and tradition Yea sir but what tradition any trueth of doctrine conserued by tradition which is not contained in the holie scriptures nothing lesse But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures Hunc patrem c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches they that wil may learne out of the scripture it selfe and vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered is contained in their writinges and it is still an hereticall assertion to say that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing but some by word of mouth In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie where I affirme the order of the Apostles schoole is first to heare the word of God preached and then to beleeue Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend that he first beleeued and afterward sought to vnderstand Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine lib Retr 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to haue ben for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught by most certaine reason what was true whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles without requiring a reason of their doctrine howe vaine it is I leaue to children to laugh at seeing I speak not of reason but of the word of God preached which must needes goe before faith Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil cred cap. 13. where he saith It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion But howe should faith be persuaded but by the preaching of the word of God without curious inquisition according to the reason of man Where I say that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God Bristow derideth their authoritie who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word as though the Popish superiors might not or their supreme head although beside so many blasphemous errors as he holdeth wherof the controuersie is with the Papistes it haue not bene oft proued that diuers Popes haue bene condemned euen by generall Councels for heretikes Where I saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops Bristowe saith if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme I would not so say But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke who died soudenly but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things appeareth but the contrarie Where I saide that to beleeue the Catholike Church is not to beleeue all and euery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine Bristowe would haue me suppose the Apostles had said Credo S. Romanam ecclesiam and then asketh howe I would haue construed it Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas c. But if the Apostles would haue taught vs to giue credite to the Church of Rome in all things they would haue taught vs to say Credo Romanae ecclesiae And Credo scripturis Canonicis duodecim Apostolis quatuor Euangelistis c. I giue credite to the holy scriptures to the twelue Apostles and to the foure Euangelistes For Credo with an Accusatiue case to signifie I giue credite howe so euer you deride my grammatication will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme as he is reported to haue done once for fiatur In the 35. Demand of Vnitie where I said the Church may be called the house of peace because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith Bristowe saith by this reason many olde heresies were with in the house of peace because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest may breake peace as that of quartadecimani who disagreed onely in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion might be in the house of peace as Irenaeus testifieth if obstinate contempt of generall order did not make a schisme and of a schisme an heresie as in the Donatistes Otherwise difference in a ceremonie as I said maketh not diuision of faith Bristowe saith yes if they holde their ceremonie necessarie But then they holde it not as a ceremonie or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull But that maketh not diuision Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie against Anicetus yet he was not diuided from him for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus nor Anicetus with him No more doe they among vs that differ in opinion of ceremonies except some fewe schismaticall heades that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes Bristowe saith are such as may be among Christians as Augustine testifieth Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel if Bristowe may be beleeued If we might haue a Christiā generall Councel for such matters as are in controuersie among vs I doubt not but we should agree better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie remaineth still among you notwithstanding the Florentine Councel which you say most impudently that I confesse to haue resolued the matter when an other Councel and an other Pope at the same time
determined against it In the 36. Demand of Owners or Keepers of the scriptures where I say the primitiue Church which commendeth the scripture vnto vs doth not condemne Luther or his doctrine for heresie Bristowe saith it doth in Aerius Iouinian Vigilantius c. as though there were no primitiue Church before these men which commended the scripture vnto vs and yet knewe neither praier for for the deade nor superstition of reliques or any thing that Luther held with those men Where I taxe the blindnesse of the Popish Church not discerning the scriptures Canonicall from Apocryphall Bristowe bringeth in a saying of Augustine shewing that it is of necessitie for him to beleeue the Actes of the Apostles if he beleeue the Gospell because the Catholike authoritie commendeth both the scriptures alike vnto him But I haue shewed that the Maccabees Ecclesiasticus Iudeth c. are not commended to vs by the Catholike or vniuersall authoritie of the Church After other contentious pointes stoutly affirmed or denied without proofe he commeth to charge me with a substantiall lie because I say our Church which is the onely true Catholike Church hath alwaies had right and possion of the worde of God as appeareth by this that our Church beleueth nothing but that she learneth in them If this be not a notable plea Bristowe reporteth him to our Lawiers But I report me to al Logicians whether it be not a good argument by prouing vs to be the true Church to claime continuall right and possession of the scriptures as for the noueltie of Luther our cōgregatiō is a weake plea to dispossesse vs of the Church when y◠antiquitie of our faith and religion proueth vs to be of the oldest Church and therefore the only true Church Where Allen made his offer that if I could shewe any Church that hath safely kept the scriptures sauing the Popish Church he would recant I shew him the Greeke and Easterne Churches which are not Popish whervpon he is bound by his offer to recant yet Bristowe without all shame saith Euery article of D. Allens is not to proue absolutely that we be the Church but some only that you be not the Church True it is that neither euery one nor any of them all are sufficient to proue that you are the Church and not we But that Allen meant they were sufficient it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant if any of them can be proued to agree to any other than to the Popish Church In the eight and thirtie Demand of old Heresies where I shewed that many of the Popish ceremonies were first instituted by heretikes aunswering directly to Allens challenge that offered to recant if any man could proue that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies Bristowe saith they are such matters as agree none otherwise to them then to those whome I dare not condemne c. Which if it were so yet doth it not shewe but that I haue aunswered Allens challenge and therefore do according to his promise claime his recantation Of the Messalians or Martyrians I saide they learned first to shaue their beardes and let their lockes growe long Bristowe out of Epiphanius saith they did let their haire growe long like women The Popish Priestes doe not so but round them Yet can he not proue out of Epiphanius that the Messalians did not keepe their haire in order by rounding or otherwise Further he saith some Protestants doe so I aunswere none of ceremonie doth so Thirdly Priestes in Italie and Spaine doe poll their heads and keepe their beardes I answere they keepe the text of the decree and you the glosse which saith statuimus id est abrogamus c. We decree that is we abrogate that Clearkes neither weare long haire nor shaue their beardes Last of all he saith I haue no great matters to charge them with when I lay their haires to their charge My reply is that my charge goeth no further then Allens challenge which vrgeth me to shewe any other to haue first instituted any one ceremonie in Poperie but the Popes only Catholike Church And so I say to the superstitious masking garmentes instituted by the Pharisees although the auncient Church about foure or fiue hundreth yeares after Christe receiued such robes in vse Also the daily vse of Popish holie water to put men in minde of baptisme had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptized or washed euerie day Here Bristowe with a verie stale iest acknowledgeth their fault and layeth it vpon Saint Paule who hath deceiued them Rom. 6. where baptisme is in deede remembred but holie water I trowe is not there O then it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paule was to blame saith Bristowe to tell vs that the creatures of God are sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer Wonderfull Diuinitie that can bring Popish holie water to so holie a beginning No maruell if we be blinde which thinke the Apostle speaketh there of the lawfull vse of meates forbidden by the Pope and of all other of Gods creatures being sanctified by the worde of God which giue vs the vse so by praier that we may vse them well But specially saith Bristowe he was to blame for saying The holy Ghost doth helpe our weaknesse praying for vs with groanes vnspeakeable how so euer blinde heretikes thinke he will doe nothing by water for praier In deede when the scriptures be so plaine for holie water it is wonder that any be so blinde they can see it Of the Ossenes I saide they tooke their hallowing of water salt oyle breade c. and vse to sweare by them Bristow asketh if I be an Anabaptist that will condemne all swearing or swearing by creatures I aunswere I will not condemne all swearing but this customable swearing of Papistes by this bread by this salt c. and as for swearing by creatures I am of the same iudgement that our Sauior Christ is Matth. 5. 34. But Papistes sweare not by them as the Ossenes did what then the controuersie is not therein but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholers a praier in a straunge tongue whose interpretation they might not seeke whome the Papistes followe in teaching the people to pray in a tongue vnknowne and will not if they may chose let them knowe the interpretation Bristowe aunswereth that Epiphanius saith his praier was nothing at all when it was interpreted Is it like Epiphanius would say so Howe could it be interpreted if it had no signification Epiphanius in deed sheweth it was a vaine thing whereof he made so great a mysterie and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the Lordes prayer the Salutation and the creede make vaine and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their wordes together truly The Marcosians in baptisme vsed for greater admiration certaine Hebrewe wordes so doe the papistes Bristowe asketh whie S.
as they write of be orderly successions By the time of these Fathers saith Bristowe there had bene foure schismes Ar. 85. Aunswere In the first proposition I speake of Tertullians time and succession of doctrine and name succession simplie In the second proposition I speake of the whole time vntill our dayes and of succession of persons and of orderly succession therefore no contradiction The fourth It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles it retained by succession that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contra he chargeth it with sundrie errors here cap. 3. 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes and eight Popes for the supremacie I might aunswere that the charging of the Popes chargeth not the Church but in the first proposition I spake of the Church of Rome in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian holding the doctrine of the Apostles contrarie to those heresies against which they write The fift It was a true Church and Apostolike Church a faithfull Church true and Apostolike faith and religion haue dwelled in her Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra The Church of Rome neuer preached the trueth She neuer had since she first arose the ministring of sacraments according to Christes institution The true Catholike Church hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes But the Popish Church was neuer able to encounter with heretikes Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns but neuer did good to Christians I am able to proue that the primitiue Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27. The latter part of this contradiction with as many falsifications as there be quotations doe sufficiently declare that in all those places I speake of the Popishe Church of Rome that nowe is and not of the true Church which of olde time was at Rome Yet to giue the reader a taste of his falsification of my wordes Ar. 106. which hee rehearseth thus Rome may be a nurse c. in truth they are these Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of mans traditions in steade of the milke of Gods worde and will rather see them famish than they should taste of Gods worde may well bee a nurse of Antichristians but neuer did good vnto Christians The sixt The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie whereof the whore beareth a cuppe full out of which all nations haue dronke Ar. 102. 38. Euen from the Apostles â—ime the diuell neuer left to set in his foote for his sonne Antichristes dominion vntill he had placed him in the temple of God and prepared the wide world for his walke and then came the generall defection Pur. 287. Contra all nations neuer consented to the doctrine of the Papistes For it hath bene often saide the Greeke Church and all other Orientall Churches of Assa and Africa neuer receiued the Popish religion in many chiefe points and specially in acknowledging the Popes authoritie they will not vnto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholike nor her authoritie to be lawfull Ar. 38. 16 33. 34. These places being both full of falsifications yet if they had bene in so many wordes set downe by me imploy no contradiction For it may be that all nâ—tions meaning as the scripture whose wordes I cite Apoc. 18. not all of euerie nation but some of all nations haue dronke of the whores cup and yet neuer receiued her religion in al things And the general defection is meant of that great apostasie that S. Paul speaketh of in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ though they fall not all to the Pope For many are fallen to Mahomet many reuolted to idolatrie many to other heresies beside Poperie The 7. The religion of Papistes came in and preuailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his AntichristiaÌ„ exaltatioÌ„ to wit Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the heade of all the Church Ar. 36. Contra in the same place Because you speak of the first entring of Popish religion which dependeth chiefly vpon the Popes authoritie it first beganne to aduaunce it selfe in Victor about the yeare of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here Popish religion in one piece first beganne to aduaunce it selfe Anno 200. and after came in and preuailed Anno 607. The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie Euen in the Apostles time and from that time in all times when so euer and where so euer was any piece of myste or darke corner there were the steppes of your walke It may be a shame for you Papistes to leaue and condemne for heresie all that is true in the Fathers writings and agreeable to the scriptures Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papistes from the great heresies and open aduersaries that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith as the Valentinians Marcionistes Manichees Arrians Sabellians and such like monsters Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction which is not of the religion of the Papistes but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the auncient Fathers which among the Papistes are growne to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians Marcionistes c. And yet there can be no contradiction where the subiectes of both propositions are not all one But here the one is of the Popish Church which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan the other is of the religion of Papistes The Papistes by communion of the diuels Church communicate with all heresies The 9. We say not that the religion of Papistes came in soudenly but that it entred by small degrees at the first and therefore â—aâ—â—esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies not preached against winked at because it had a shewe of Pietie and Charitie and at length allowed of Augustine and others who followed the common errors of their time Specially when a generall defection and departing from the faith was foreshewed what marueile were it if none colde preach against it as it first entred Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra The Church of Christ in such places as she is suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion without open reprehension Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries as that I should say The religion of papistes was not preached against c. Winked at c. Allowed of Augustine c. For I neuer said so of the whole religion of papists but of some fewe errors budding vp in antient times But both Ar. 36. where I aske What maruaile c. as an obiection I doe neuerthelesse shewe who preached against the vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome which yet tended not to a damnable error Ar. 38. I affirme there was both preaching
of Christe heareth the voice of Christe and is ruled thereby The church of GOD is the piller and stay of truth so called because that where so euer the church is either visible or inuisible there is the trueth Saint Paule by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers howe great a burthen and charge they sustaine that the trueth of the Gospell can not be continued in the world but by their ministerie in the church of God which is the piller and stay of truth This their duetie true preachers considering are diligent in their calling to preach the trueth As our church is the piller and stay of trueth so is she also the house of trueth which knoweth nothing but him that is the trueth it selfe Iesus Christ and his most holy Scripture in which this trueth is signed and testified We require you to beleeue the true Catholike church onely and immediatly againe to the contrarie We require you not to beleeue any one companie of men more than an other Ar. 82. 81. 93. 99. 62. 77. 100. 108. 62. This contradiction is easily reconciled The true Church may erre but not in any point that is necessarie to euerlasting saluation We require men to beleeue the true Catholike Church only not for the companie but for the trueth 34 The error of Purgatorie and praying for the deade is continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christe vnto a plaine departing away into the church of Antichrist Contra The tâ—ue and onely church of God is so guided by Gods spirite and directed by his word that she can not induce any damnable error to conâ—â—nâ—â— No nor suffereth any man daÌ„nably abusing her religion without open reprehension and yet Purgatorie c. came in with silence The error of praying for the dead was not damnable while it continued in the Church of Christ the Church of Antichrist by derogating full satisfaction from the bloud of Christ hath made it damnable 35 The church of Christ hath of the holie Ghost a iudgement to discerne true writings from counterfets and the worde of GOD of infallible veritie from the writing of men which might erre She hath commended the bookes of holy Scripture to be beleeued of all true Christians We persuade vs of the authoritie of Gods booke because we haue most stedfast assurance of Gods spirite for the authoritie of it with the testimonie of the true church in all ages Ar. 5. 4. 9. Contra All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you For other writings may be counted the workes of their authours without your censure the holy Scripture may not be counted the worde of God except you list so to allow it Other writings are of credite according to the authoritie of the writers The holie Scriptures with you houe not credite according to the authoritie of God the authour of them but according to your determination Pur. 219. Here is no shewe of contradiction but a wretched begging of the principle that the Popish Church is the true Church of Christ. Of such contradictions you may make not 50 but 500000. 36 Those that by true Christians haue bene called and counted for heretikes haue proued so in deede Ar. 65. Contra This Demaund hath a false principle that the church ought to be a Christian mans onely it is not in Doctor Allens principle stay in al troubles and tempestes The first proposition is an Ironicall imitation of Allens absurd proposition and not an absolute assertion of mine 37 And therefore the Papistes being called and counted heretikes of true Christians that is of the Protestantes without doubt are heretikes in deede Ar 65. Contra. He is a foolish Sophister that reasoneth from names to things as you doe most vainely and childishly Ar. 66. The former proposition is the conclusion which I retort vpon Allens principle that whosoeuer by true christians are called heretikes do proue so in deede 38 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Ar. 86. Contra Augustines argument of the publike prayers of the church tooke no hold of the Pelagians by force of trueth that is in it but by their owne confession and graunt of that prayer to be godly and them to be of the church that so prayed But now the controuersie is not onely of the substance of doctrine but of the church it selfe also The Donatistes challenged the church to themselues Pur. 367. Here is not so much as any shadowe of contradiction for in the heresie of the Donatists the chiefest controuersy was of the Church as for the prayer of the Church they vsed it themselues as well as the true Catholikes out of which prayer Augustine gathereth an argument against them 39 But for the chiefe pointes of christian religion and the foundation of our faith that is Reall presence c. the most approued writers are vtterly against you and therefore can not be of your church Contra But the Lutheranes and Zuinglians as it pleaseth you to call them are of one true church although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament the one assirming a Reall presence the other denying it The contradiction is easily auoided by shewing that the reall presence among a number of thinges in that place rehearsed may be one chiefe point of religion and yet not a foundation of our faith For I say the auncient fathers agree with vs in the chiefe points of religion and the foundation of our faith which seeing the Lutherans hold with vs the dissent in one chiefe point of religion can not disseuer them from the Church and yet they dissent not vnto idolatrie as the Papists doe And where Bristow slandereth mee to say that I count the errors of some of that latter sort of old fathers in honoring reliques inuocation of Saints merits traditions vnwritten verities images of the crosse to be contrary to the foundation he is able to shewe no place where I so affirme And albeit they did so earnestly maintaine some of those errors that they condemned by their priuate sensure the contrary truth for heresies yet it followeth not that they were heretikes For it is one thing to hold an error earnestly an other to holde it obstinatly so that he is condemned of his owne conscience when he will not yeeld to the manifest truth plamly proued out of the worde of God 40 We knowe that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously erre in any article of faith concerning the substance of religion Luther Caluine and Bucer shall come with Christ to iudge the world As for Illyrians if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament and differ onely in ceremonies which can not diuide them from the faith Ar. 10. 61. Pur. 403. Contra What Flaccius or any such as he is hath saide neither doe I knowe neither doe I regard let them aunswere for them selues But whereas you charge M.
Caluine c. Because I knowe not how Illyricus and such contentious persons as he expoundeth the annointing in Saint Iames but referre them to aunswere for them selues therefore I speake contrary to my selfe where I say they differ not in faith from the Lutherans 41 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian mans conscience Ar. 86. Contra The Church is the â—ay of trueth If that argument of the Church without triall which is the Church might take place it would serue you both for a sword and a bucklar The church saith it and we are the church Therefore it is true Pur. 367. It seemeth Bristowe is beside himselfe in coyning of contradictions These words The Church is the stay of truth for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place but his owne addition although in other sense I confesse the Church is the stay and piller of truth not that all is true which is alwaies in the Church but that truth can not be preserued on earth by the Church 42 Among the arguments that Augustine vseth against the Pelagians one though the feeblest of an hundred is that their heresie was contrarie to the publique praiers of the church Contra All other persuasions set aside hee prouoketh onely to the Scripture to trie the faith and doctrine of the church namely in beating downe the schisme of the Donaistes and the heresie of the Pelagians Where also he contradicteth him selfe againe in shewing the reason whie he argued against the Donatistes of only Scripture but against the Pelagians of the churches praiers also The Pelagians graunted them to be of the church that so praied And therefore when Augustine had to doe with the Donatistes that challenged the church vnto them selues he setteth all other trials aside and prouoketh onely to the Scriptures Let the readers iudge for I can not imagine where there be should be so much as the shadowe of a contradiction gathered out of these wordes except he meane that he which prouoketh onely to the scriptures may not vse an hundreth argumentes out of them yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures and yet stand onely vpon the auctority of the scriptures 43 We stand for autoritie only to the iudgemeÌ„t of the holy scriptures Pu. 432. Contra The ground that we haue to persuade vs of the authoritie of gods booke is because we haue most stedfast assuraÌ„ce of Gods spirit for the autoritie of that booke with the testimonie of the true church in alages The church of Christ hath a iudgement to discerne the word of God from the writings of men The primitiue churches testimonie of the word of God we allow and beleeue You should bring a great preiudice against vs and passing wel prouide for the credit of your cause the discredit of ours if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitiue pure church for the space of a hundreth yeares after Christe or something out of any Authenticall writer which liued within one hundred yeares after the Apostles age Ar. 9. 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39. 42. The first proposition as in the place quoted is manifest is spoken of questions of doctrine and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God The last sentence You should bring c. being patched out of two places of my booke Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition for although we stand for auctority onely to iudgement of the holy scriptures yet we are content to giue you this aduantage against vs if you can bring any thing out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead 44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without colour or couerture the onely right order of ministration Contra in the next line I knowe the Papistes will flee to those wordes of the Apostle The rest I will set in order when I come That is manifest to be spoken of matters of externall comelinesse and therefore say we of the order of ministration Pur. 362. In rehearsing my wordes he leaueth out fiue lines of my saying betwene the words Couerture and The onely right c. which declare that I speake of the essâ—ntiall order of ministration against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the hoast for the quicke and the dead both generally and particularly and a solemne prayer for all departed in Christ to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament 45 The olde Doctors neuer heard Purgatorie named nor praier for the deade Pur. 438. Contra About S. Augustines time the name of Purgatorie was first inuented And long afore that also Montanus had in all points the opinioÌ„ of the Papists c. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet againe Before Chrysostomes time it was but a blinde error without a head Pur. 356. My wordes are of the heresie of Purgatory and my meaning of those olde Doctors in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a punie being younger almost by 300. yeares in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inueâ—ted yet the heresie was elder in Montanus How prayer for the deade came into the Church it was vncertaine in Chrysostomes time and therefore I say it was a blinde error without a heade 46 In Saint Augustines time Sathan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatorie Pur. 54. Contra That error of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded vp in his time Pur. 161. And specially here cap. 3. pag. 14 saying And this I thinke is the right pedigree of praiers for the dead and Purgatorie where he putteth the very last generation of it to haue bene in S. Augustines time and the foundationlong afore Christes time It were a strange contradiction that could bee picked out of these two allegories laying the foundation and rifely budding seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building and budding is the first towardnesse of fruite As for the pedigree is not to the last generation as Bristow saith layed in Saint Augustines time but from the first auctor howe it was continued vnto Saint Augustines time since which there haue beene many dissents before popish Purgatory were throughly shaped and brought forth 47 M. Allen affirmeth that after mens departure the representation of almes by such as receiued it shall moue God exceedingly to mercy O vaine imagination for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor Pur. 242. 243. Contra Chrysostome alloweth rather almes that men giue before their death or bequeath in their Testament because it is a worke of their owne than that almes which other men giue for them howbeit also such almes are auaileable for the dead he saith Pur. 236. 237. That which Chrysostome speaketh of litle helpe wil not serue Allen to proue that almes shall moue GOD exceedingly to mercy 48 The auncient Doctors did holde the foundation Contra cap. 4 pag. 28. He
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
rules enacted by Parliament for condemning heresie if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect and not deride them like a scornefull traitor he might vnderstand that the three later are not contrarie to the first which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture which is declared either in the 4. first general councels or in any other generall councell agreeing with the scripture or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter Not that the Parliament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie or to make any thing heresie which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures What if I woulde not were I worse then the Thessalonians or Bereans which dayly searched the scriptures to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture saith Bristowe and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth Gal. 1. which was of preaching as if it were of onely scripture I aunswere my wordes are these if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth he is to be accursed but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God since the Apostles departure but the canonicall scriptures which doe containe al that they preached the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of saluatioÌ„ then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels 〈…〉 he see apostolike and succession of bishops with a note 〈◊〉 the ende what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence whereof if I had any couler my selfe 〈…〉 o mountybanke pedler is so facing and boasting as I â—nd my fellowes As franke as I seeme in renouncing â—hat goodly euidence I trust to be carefull enough to â—olde fast the euidence of eternall life which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God and if I and my fellowes boast in â—hem because our boasting is in God I doubt not but â—ee shal be better accepted of him then they that count â—hat boasting a stale exception and boast in vanitie 〈…〉 ust in lying and at least make flesh for their arme â—heir heart departeth from the liuing God 4 Against the fathers Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares 〈…〉 ter Christ because I knowe they cannot yet in that 〈…〉 allenge I say nothing contradictorie to my former 〈…〉 ssertion that onely the worde of God conteined in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures is the iudge of all doctrine and tryall of trueth and stay of a Christian mans conscience against any thing that is taught to be beleeued vnto saluation or concerning the worship of God either contrary to it or beside it But Fulkes two onelyes sayeth Bristowe namely onely the moste auncient Church and only Scripture are vtterly without all ground and but 〈…〉 eere voluntarie If it be without grounde to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof let euery Christian conscience consider As for the voluntarinesse â—f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie beâ—ause you will not accept them let your will stande in 〈…〉 eede of reason but if you call them voluntarie because you neede not accept them and yet approue your selues good Christians remember who it is that sayth my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come when you will not be tyed to the most auncient Churches testimony and the eldest writers of the same Nowe concerning other by quarrels and cauils whereas I sayde Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures wee receiue it with their praise and whatsoeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures we refuse with their leaue Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures But who made him so priuie of my meaning my wordes import no such thing for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian that which I spake of all the fathers in generall Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani non vt canonicas habeo sed eaâ— ex canonicâ—â— considero quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non congruit cuâ— pace eius respuo I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall but I consider them by the canonicall and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I receiue it with his praise but that which agreeth not I refuse it with his leaue I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly by that which agreeth with the Scripture to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes Where I sayde that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest worde of God and the credite of the Apostles there is no cause that we should be carryed away with them Bristowe sayeth in the margent aâ— though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles when wee saye The Apostles haue not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings you aunswere but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men is not to be receiued he noteth our absurditie because not onelye Melancton and such like as Allen hath tolde â—s were mortall men but also in the same terme of mortall men are the Apostles them selues comprehended And what of this Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton or of Peter and Paul as they were mortall men No verily Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone and the onely author of the doctrine whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste and therefore their writings wee receiue as the worde of God which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles Where I sayde We dare not depend vppon any one manâ—â—udgement for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde Bristowe answereth Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time yea and â—ith Christ him selfe and yet to winne such persons both the Apostles and Christ him selfe condescended to them accordingly And why do not you follow the example of Christ of his Apostles to winne so many thousandes as doe refuse
your doctrine because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures But the faithfull you thinke for all that were not so straite laced but beleeued them vppon their owne worde both Christ and his Apostles because of the spirite of trueth that he sent to them And God be thanked we as faithfull men acknowledge without controuersie the spirite of trueth in Christ and his Apostles But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely sayeth Bristow but also to his Church after them for euer We doubt not but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church but not in such full measure as to his Apostles And if he had how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite but by tryall of the scriptures which were vndoubtedly written by the same spirite Bristow saith the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church at all times for the same spirite then the Apostles He must first proue the spirite so giuen to the Church that shee can no more erre in her decrees then the Apostles could in their writings Secondly if that were proued the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations which all boast of the spirite of trueth as much as the true Church And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirite but trye the spirites whether they be of God we knowe none so sure a triall as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures whether it be a multitude of men or seueral persons of one age or another of one degree or other that offreth to teache any doctrine which he or they pretende to haue of the spirite of God Last of all where I sayde Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth and therefore I wâ—y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe Bristowe noteth in the margent It is pryde to follow the fathers and humilitie to condemne them Whereto I aunswere to boast of the fathers to maintaine an olde errour is stinking pryde and it is not against true humilitie to make fathers and mothers and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde reuealed in the holy scriptures The second parte Being tolde that the question betweene vs is not as he maeketh it of the Scriptures authoritie but of the meaning howe there likewise against all the expositors he maketh the same exception of onely scripture requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture When in all this Chapter you deny onely scripture to be of soueraine authoritie sufficiency and credite to teache vs all the will of God are you not impudent to saye the question is not of the authoritie of the Scriptures But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning and not of the authoritie Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood bâ— on our side or on the auncient doctors side for the meaning of the scripture What then I aunswere the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie where some of the doctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes This aunswere I trust will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie After this he sayeth I count my selfe and my companions happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the coÌ„mentaries of doctors but as he troweth not without the coÌ„mentaries of Caluine But herein as in all things almost he belyeth mee for I neuer spake word against the reading of the coÌ„mentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition without weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places Likewise where I compare the whole heape of superstition errour out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill Bristowe noteth that I make the doctors writings a dunghill Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors as the sweeping of a faire house is meete to be cast on a dunghill Let Bristowe or Allen if he list say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors And yet it followeth not that the doctors writings are a dunghill more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse blindnesse c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scriptures where I sayde wee shalbe neuer the more certeine of the trueth whether wee challenge or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding the scriptures to the doctors Bristowe aunswereth whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree shall bee euer most certaine of trueth which is inoughe though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning Wee are then much the neere when the question is of the scriptures meaning if by the consent of the doctors we cannot be certaine of the scriptures meaning And if that trueth as we beleeue that all trueth is in the scriptures howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures Where I aunswere that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite as the doctors had although wee agree not with them in all interpretations euen as Cyprian and Cornelius were both indued with Gods spirite although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures Bristowe replyeth that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè though explicitè hee were of an erronious iudgement And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring because hee qâ—eâ—ly continueth in vnitie with them and doth not obstinately holde his error against them But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs for neither will wee bee reformed by them neither woulde they be reformed by Aâ—rius Iouinianus c. whom he calleth our forefathers If you haue no greater diuersitie then this the case will be all one for neither woulde Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade of Catholikes in their time as wee can make in this time although they woulde not bee reformed by Aerius an heretike yet charitie moueth vs to thinke they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Catholike Where I conclude that the harde places of scripture are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier adding the ordinarie meanes of witt learning c. adding that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may eaâ—ie bee deceiued Bristowe noteth a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman ought to bee ignoraunt in the 〈…〉 riptures
into the wildernesse at the comming of Antichrist is to become inuisible to the worlde Although this article bee not a matter of faith in controuersie betweene vs neither yet so affirmed of mee as though to bee in the wildernesse were nothing else but to bee inuisible to the worlde yet I will proue so much as I affirmed that the Church being in the wildernesse is inuisible to the worlde The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not is to them inuisible But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world inuisible Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the beginning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion Before I proue this it were reason you should tell how sone you meane or I said such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing shoulde bee And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christes seconde comming The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken vp to God and his throne the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wildernesse The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely obscurely described by dayes monethes 〈…〉 d yeares and generally by a time times and halfe a 〈…〉 e which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be in account of our yeres nor when 〈…〉 comming of Christ should be After this hee saith I triumph in lying when I af 〈…〉 me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely 〈…〉 ipture whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter as to prooue that the tryall of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to bee onely by scripture And 〈…〉 terwarde hee sayth playnely they refuse the tryall 〈…〉 onely scriptures but not by scriptures no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith because they refuse onely faith 〈…〉 here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one 〈…〉 in the minor of this argument The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee 〈…〉 led onely by the voyce of Christ therefore shee is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona 〈…〉 le man woulde haue vnderstoode onely in the maior 〈…〉 so seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled 〈…〉 y the voyce of an other man then her husbande or 〈…〉 hat will bee ruled by her selfe or take vppon 〈…〉 er to ouerrule her husbande I added also in the 〈…〉 inor which Bristow omitteth that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions and com 〈…〉 mitteth grosse idolatrie Ar. 99. Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas 〈…〉 mie for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemeÌ„t 〈…〉 he answereth it is al one as if I shold say the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will bâ— cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned being hiâ— selfe a fisherman and vnstable did misconster S. Pauâ— epistles c. to their owne damnation which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue that the Apâ— stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God 〈◊〉 contrarie to the scriptures in other places to iudge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture as the Popish Church doeth 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter being an Apostle indued with so mâ— ny graces was vnlearned because hee had beene a 〈◊〉 sherman Agayne where I sayde the Popishe Church ma 〈…〉 festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures when shee affirmeth that no booke 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonicall but so far foorth as sh 〈…〉 will allowe it This sayth Bristowe is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them manifestly reiâ—cted the whole c because they made a Canon or Câ—nons whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonicall wherevppon him selfe also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet proued for they may bee called the Canon and Canonicall because they are the certayne rule to directe 〈◊〉 matters of religion But admitte the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them in hauing the spir 〈…〉 of discretion made such a Canon to discerne true aâ—d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or writen by the spirite of man what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalengeth that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholomewe as of Mathew of Thomas as of Iohn c whereby it followeth that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas Where I sayde the popish Bishoppes durst not abyde the conference at Westminster first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase because I saide it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde as one that care not what I say In deede I 〈…〉 de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which woulde not take my wordes as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉 ght haue knowledge of it Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference in com 〈…〉 rison of the councell of Trent yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken but such as was well liked of by the Papistes 〈…〉 m selues vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no 〈…〉 dite Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell 〈◊〉 Trent being so solemnly honorably inuited with 〈…〉 h safeconductes c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for euer on your behalfes And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered I say it was to no purpose in such a 〈…〉 cke councell where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll partie that is accused of heresie shall be the onely 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples lawes equitie and reason Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole countrie I will not quarell at your phrase 〈…〉 t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie But nowe to the fourefolde offer wherein first you say that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande â—e compt you as you shew your selues to bee errant â—aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent we owe no more subiection 〈…〉
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
toward that 〈◊〉 of the world must be heated whot because the soules 〈◊〉 tary there the shorter time With such inuentions 〈◊〉 may answere any question But I seeke a resolution 〈◊〉 of the word of God or good reason agreeable thereto To the 2. question you answere it is not 〈◊〉 to Gods mercie to remit such punishment at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quest of his glorious Saintes as he nowe doeth â—or 〈◊〉 Churches prayers But seeing the Saintes know not 〈◊〉 sodennes of that moment howe shall they pray for 〈◊〉 discharge of them that deserue to goe to purgatorie 〈◊〉 they pray for it continually why pray they not as 〈◊〉 to discharge all other men from purgatory as those th 〈…〉 shal remaine aliue at the comming of Christe And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercie it is not the matter in question but howe it may stand with 〈◊〉 iustice which as you holde requireth satisfaction by temporall punishment For otherwise we know it standeth both with his iustice and his mercie that they whiche obteine forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ should immediately after their death be receiued into the fellowshippe of them that are likewise made righteous by him Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moued but not answered and yet the place is corrupted and inforced as Ludovicus Vives confesseth In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth against them which helde that God after the iudgement would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints In the 27. Chapter which he also quoteth there is nothing to the question Whether faith hope and Gods will may stand with Purgatorie This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians to mourne for the deade much more it is against the hope and faith of Christians to pray for them For by our prayer we suppose them 〈…〉 e in miserie whom the worde of God doeth testifie 〈…〉 e in happinesse to be at rest to be with Christ. Ioh. Apoc. 14. Bristow answereth those Scriptures proue that they be straightway in happinesse c. as he 〈◊〉 shewed and I haue shewed the contrary that they â—roue it notwithstanding all his impudent cauilati 〈…〉 Secondly he saith it is not against hope to mourne 〈◊〉 to mourne as the Gentiles which knowe not the 〈…〉 rrection Neither do I say that all mourning is a 〈…〉 st hope but such mourning as supposeth them to 〈…〉 n miserie or to be lost as the Papistes Paganes 〈◊〉 Our mourning for the delay of the kingdome God as he vnderstandeth it for the generall resurre 〈…〉 n is for our present miserie and therefore lawfull 〈…〉 e ioyned with hope But mourning for the dead whose happinesse the Scripture assureth vs is a 〈…〉 nst faith therefore contrary to hope 〈…〉 nother argument in the same place is All places 〈…〉 cripture that forbidde prayers without faith for 〈…〉 de prayers for the deade For faith is an assurance 〈◊〉 of the worde of God c. This argument saith Bristow supposeth that the 〈…〉 de of God is only Scripture Yea verily it suppo 〈…〉 that only Scripture is the warrant of Gods worde we haue before mainteined and also answered to 〈◊〉 Apocryphall Booke of the Machabees A third argument is Pur. 281. We learne out of Gods 〈…〉 rde that whatsoeuer we pray for according to his 〈…〉 ll we shall obteine 1. Iohn 5. Prayers for the dead 〈◊〉 not according to the will of God and therefore they 〈◊〉 not heard at al. Bristow denieth the minor which he 〈…〉 th I haue not proued Yes verily I proue it because the 〈…〉 dgement followeth immediately after death and in 〈…〉 dgement God wil heare no prayers And therefore 〈…〉 istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sinne not 〈…〉 to death and shameful addition Let him after his death 〈…〉 quest of Christ and life shal be giuen vnto him is false and 〈…〉 surde although he saith he hath giuen the plaine smoth 〈…〉 se of the whole place which is to be vnderstoode of men liuing and not of the dead A smooth expos 〈…〉 If one see his brother sinne he must pray for him a 〈…〉 his death Againe he vrgeth the present temps who 〈◊〉 knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not to death 〈◊〉 one saith Bristowe that liued in schisme but yet 〈◊〉 reconciled before he died O monstrous and more th 〈…〉 palpable blindenesse be these verbes liued reconc 〈…〉 dyed of the present or preterperfect temps which t 〈…〉 deniest the Apostle to haue vsed But omit the te 〈…〉 which he calleth him a brother which liueth in schis 〈…〉 How much more soundly may I reason vpon the present temps Saint Iohn biddeth vs pray for a brother 〈…〉 ning but a brother sinning is onely liuing therefore S. Iohn biddeth vs pray only for a brother liuing For they that are in Purgarorie neither deserue nor sinne by your owne confession As for the sinne against the holy Ghost which we say is not to be prayed for at all he threateneth often to consute in the 12. Chapter In the meane time it is euident that Purgatorie for any thing that is hitherto applyed by Bristow remaineth confuted by sufficient argumentes and authoritie of the Scriptures The fourth parte concerning all other questions that he mentioneth and first of good workes in generall Iustification Free will Remitting the questions of the witnesses of Gods worde vnto fiue motives in the 10. Chapter where I alledge that good workes do not iustifie two places one of Saint Paul another of Esaie he holdeth the contrary that works do iustifie And first calling me a falsary because I recite not the very wordes of the Apostle which was not my purpose but to shew what we do affirme out of that texte of the Apostle he saith iustification by workes is not denied by that text of Saint Paule Rom. 3. We holde that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe for it is to be vnderstoode of workes going before Baptisme and not of workes following 〈…〉 aptisme because Saint Iames saith a man is iustified of â—orkes and not of faith onely To this I aunswere 〈…〉 aint Paul speaketh of iustification before God Saint 〈…〉 ames of iustification before men Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by loue Saint Iames of a bare know 〈…〉 edge a barren and dead faith a faith that is voide of good workes And that Saint Paule speaketh generally of all good workes it is manifest by this reason that he saith boa 〈…〉 ting is excluded not by the lawe of workes but by the 〈…〉 awe of faith what manner of exclusion were it to shut â—ut boasting for a moment while one is baptized and â—mmediately after receiue it againe by defending iustification by workes Againe he sayeth immediately after â—t is one God which shal iustifie circuÌ„cision which is of faith and vncircumcision through faith
and to great profite of many Likewise in the ende a passing good similitude of wine to finishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone and then againe water and as wine tempered with water is pleasant and delighteth the taste so the setting out of the matter deliteth the eares of them that reade the storie But to the rest Bristowe asketh if the scribes of the holy ghost must bee alwayes eloquent or able to doe all without sweat or labour I aunswere as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them so they neuer complain for the lack of it but spirituall vtterance they haue abundantly and that without sweat and watching whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them Neither doth S. Paul confesse that he lacketh vtterance when he said he was rude in speaking 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apostles did obiect against him for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence that he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans as Bristowe saith blasphemously but sheweth that he was bold vpō his office because he was the minister of Christ vnto the gentils Ro. 15 That he vsed the hand of Tertius in writing that Epistle or any other it was not to auoid the labor of endi ting Finally that he vsed intollerable paines in preaching It proueth not that it cost him great labor trauel in studying what to write or preach either which the spirit of God did minister vnto him plentifully But neuer doth he craue pardon as one vncerteine whether he haue don well or no as the writer of the Machabees doth confessing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could and in the beginning leauing to the author the exact diligēce of euery particular so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth which are refelled both by the former book of Machabees and by Iosephus Where Allen alleged the authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby for in S. Ieroms works none such is found now commeth Bristow telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees in the vulgar latine Bybles taken out of the sēse of Ierom as diuers of those prefaces be and that wil appeare by these two places which I cite out o◠him to proue that booke not canonicall The former is in his preface vpon the book of kings where rehersing the names of the canonical books he omitteth this and after saith expresly it is not in the Canon Bristow aunswereth it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes As though the church of God since Christ shoulde haue more bookes of the olde testament in the canon then the church of the Hebrews had Ierom saith that this preface of his may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin v◠scire valeamus quicquid extrahos est inter Apocripha esse ponendū That we may be able to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be placed among the apocriphall writings So that Ierom speaketh expresly that not onely among the Iewes but among Christians also these al other books without the canon are to be taken for apocriphall The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs that they were neither in the Churches canon Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudeth Tobias Machabees but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia she may reade to the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of the churches doctrin To wit saith Bristow against the Iewes as though the Churches doctrin is not to be cōfirmed against heretikes and euen to the Catholiks themselues by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall after a sort it was of me confessed and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth de praed sanct de ciuit Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. But Ierom is also cited in his preface vpon the booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice if that were so what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees But in deede it is not so for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith the words are these With the Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among the hagiographaor books called holy writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things that come in controuersie is iudged lesse conuenient yet being written in the Chaldee tongue it is counted among the stories But because the Synod of Nice is redde to haue accounted it in the number of holy scriptures I haue yelded to your request c. First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa which is false as Hierom affirmeth Prolog Gal. in lib. reg Secondly as Erasmus hath noted he affirmeth not that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell but saith it is read to haue accounted perhaps in some such writer as coyned the canon sent vnto the Aphrican councell Thirdly if we shall vnderstand Hagiographa heere as Bristowe woulde haue them not for those nine that be canonicall but others that be Apocriphal yet holy writings why shoulde we not likewise say that the computatiō of the Nicen councel was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings and not among the canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before in saying that Ierom doth simply refuse the books of the Machabees saith the church receiueth thē not for canonicall euen that which Bristow saith I should haue shewed that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue them that we might be able to know saith he speaking I dare say of himselfe all other members of the Church that whatsoeuer books are without the Canō of the Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames but Eusebiu before them saith plainly it is a counterfait protesting that I speake it not to excuse them that doubt of it Bristo◠is not content except I woulde condemne thē for heretikes which afterwarde reuersed their error especially Luther Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite when he saith the cleane contrary and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius I know not out of whose translation But the words of Eusebius are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit 2 About onely scripture I said Cyprian
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
presence if any sacrament bee made at al Fisher whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if or condition you shal be answered to Fishers whether or question Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words Fisher of our doings If the scripture be not Christs words Fisher spake onely of our doings 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures Nay syr he affirmeth precisely that it cannot be proued by the scripture These are the foure great enormous fault I trust after this tast no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes falsely fathered vpon Master Iewel Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onely to the matter in controuersie Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued Videlicet that the people were not taught c. as in the beginning of the Chapter The question being not of the wordes but of the meaning saith Iewel Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. to proue that Christ lacked neither wisedome nor vtterance to speak plainely of his Sacraments and mysteries which is verie true for hee spake plainely syncerely and truely although he spake figuratiuely Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner as Augustine saith But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking M. Iewel M. Harding M. Sander and my selfe it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse as Sander giueth me example Iewel Christ was the Rocke but yet not really Sand. S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament or any other thing Fulke S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament made by God in the wildernes Sand. Two diuerse natures in those words are named which can not be one substance But this is my body nameth one substance Fulke One substance is demonstrated and another named Moses might haue said truely shewing the rock to the people This is Christe or els S. Paul could not haue said truly the rock was Christ. Sand. It was not anie one certaine rocke whereof S. Paul spake for the water flowed out of two Rocks Either of which did signifie Christ and they both are onely one Rocke in meaning and in substance figured therefore Saint Paul meant onely of the spirituall Rocke which is Christ. Fulke Manna which was the spirituall meat they did eate rayned euerie day yet was it but one Christ in signification therefore S. Paul meant onely of the spiritual Manna which is Christ and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke Iewel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his bodie and bloud Sand. He did so but he gaue such a figure as is also the substance of his bodie as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance is also the selfesame substance with his father Fulke As he gaue a figure he gaue not the substance Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as he is a person distinct by himselfe and not his father Neither doth Augustine meane of such an vnitie in essence as is betweene God the father the sonne when he doth plainly deuide sacramentum rem sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament that is the figure and the thing figured Sand. He gaue a true and not a false signe lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous not a common figure lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine not a rhetoricall figure lib. 2. cap 14. Fulke These are answered in their proper places aboue cited Sand. He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth not which betokeneth a thing absent from it which August declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come c. Fulke Augustine in this place and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament and of the new that theirs were of Christ to come once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come but of the reall presence he speaketh no word Ablata sunt signa promittentia c. The promising signes are taken away because the truth that was promised is exhibited In this bodie we are of this bodie we are partakers Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof after a mysticall manner and so were all that euer pleased GOD not after a corporall manner such as the Papistes imagine wherefore Augustine saith vpon the same Psalme alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament Sursum corda habcamus Siresurrexistis cum Christo dicit fidelibus corpus sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit c. Let vs haue our hearts aboue If yee bee risen againe with Christ hee speaketh to the faithfull hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde if you bee risen againe with Christ sauour of these things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely and not as he saith else-where Sacramento tenus as farre as the sacrament or outward signe onely Sand. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure Fulke Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14. Sand. The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible corruptible mortal nature which Augustine knowing was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth none otherwise then in the shape of breade for that respect hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie Fulke Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onely by way of a similitude sheweth that if children should neuer learne more of Christ then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them that it is the bodie of Christ and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onely in the celebration of the sacrament they woulde imagine that Christ had appeared onely in that shape but this is impossible therfore Augustine coulde not feare it And seeing hee had no such feare he had no such respect as Sander dreameth as well concerning his feare as concerning his respect Iew. Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie Sand. Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body Fulk Tertullian proueth that Christ had a true bodie because the sacrament was a figure thereof for a phātasme or a vaine thing can
A REIOYNDER to Bristows Replie in defence of Allens scroll of Articles and Booke of Purgatorie Also the cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof CONFVTED BY WILLIAM FVLKE DOCTOR IN DIVINITIE AND Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge Seene and allowed AT LONDON Printed by H. Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1581. To the Christian Reader ALlen the Author of the Popish challenge as it is now confessed and of the Booke of Purgatorie as he alwayes acknowledged finding mine answere to both these treatises so well grounded vpon the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and testimonies of the most ancient writers that albeit he might quarell at many bie matters yet he was not able to auoyd the substance of mine arguments and answeres determined not to aduenture his credite in publishing any replie vnder his owne name and therefore turned ouer the businesse to one Bristowe whose impudence being approued in his Motiues and demaundes was thought more meete to take so desperate a cause in hand Bristowe himselfe on the otherside perceiuing that it was impossible for him to make any shewe of replie that might satisfie any meane witte if hee should followe me orderly and directly from point to point as I haue followed Allen durst not once vndertake that lawfull course of replying which I haue alwayes obserued in answering but by confounding of many diuers matters together hath sought to bring a great mist vpon the cause vnder which hee might rather hide then defende his master Allen and he himselfe like a pretie man nowe and then start out and giue a perilous blowe and so retyre into his cloude againe For this purpose it was not sufficient for him leauing all order of replying to take vpon him the confutation of two books of myne of most diuerse matters in one of his but that the confusion might bee greater and the light of trueth appeare much lesser he must defende two more of his owne So that hauing nowe iumbled together no lesse then sixe treatises in one two of Allens two of mine and two of his owne he thinketh himselfe so well armed with darkenes and confusion that if he cannot haue a conquest yet he may be sure to haue a starting hole to hide himselfe in And first he findeth great fault that his motiues and demaunds which most men for the great follie shewed in thē dispised were not first answered dreming that my books should neuer haue beene put in print but to make a shewe of answere to his motiues and demaunds But how vainely he gesseth mine answere printed to those wodden workes of his doth plainely discouer Of like vanitie and more impudence it is that hee affirmeth constantly that I was faigne to set foorth those bookes without priuiledge albeit I say the one was authorized distinguishing betweene priuiledge and authoritie wherein I know not what the peeuish quareller meaneth For this I am sure that both those bookes had such approbation and license to be printed as al bookes concerning religion ought to haue by the Queenes iniunctions which I call count a sufficient authorizing Concerning priuileging I suppose Bristowe cauelleth because he knoweth not what the name of a priuiledge signifieth for which I will remit him to some lawyer to learne But where I affirmed that my booke was authorised two yeares before it was imprinted he douteth whether he may beleeue my bare word because I write in the same We beleue that the Catholike Church hath no cheefe gouernour vpon earth but Christ vnto whom all power is giuen in heauen in earth But I pray thee Bristow what doth this hinder thee to beleeue me vpon my bare word Thou demandest a question in the margent What if the Church were in England onely or one were King of all Countries sometime where it is I might according to Salomons aduise answere thee according to thy folly deferre my resolution vntill either the Church be in England only or that one were King of all Countries where it is But lest thou shouldst thinke thy self wise in thy folish question I answere that if either of both those cases should come to passe which are both impossible Christ should stil reteine his office and power that he hath in heauen and earth and that one King of England or of many coūtries should haue no more authoritie ouer the Church then the Queene of England now hath ouer that portion of the Church that is in England or ouer all those portions that are in other her seuerall dominions But whereas Bristow saith my former booke commeth forth only by permissiō to make a shew of somewhat for a time if after it chaunce of some Papist to be dasht out of countenance then the shame to be no mans but onely Fulkes I wish the gentle reader to consider two thinges First that he will charge no man with the shame of mine errors if any he can proue but me onely as in deede there is no reason that any man should beare the blame of my folly but my selfe least of al the church of God Secōdly that by quarelling at the want of priuiledge and authorizing of my writinges he acknowledgeth this his owne booke of reply to lacke neither priuiledge nor authoritie so that if I not onely dash it out of countenaunce but also shewe it to be voyde of wisdome learning and trueth the shame shall not be priuate to Bristow alone but cōmon to all the popish faction beyond the sea on this side the same by whose cōmon consent it seemeth to be penned and set foorth Bristows reply is conteined in 13. Chapters to euery of which and to euery part of them as they are intitled by himselfe I will answere in order that they which liste to conferre my Reioynder with his Reply may see I seeke not by confusion to couer any falshood but by orderly proceeding to bring the trueth to light Faultes escaped The first number signifieth the page the last the number of the lines Page 14 line 9 for aid lege ende 15 36 Haeie l. Hovve 16 28 ap l. cap 24 l. 27 28 c read Apotactites Encratites c. 33 23 mortuis l. mortuos 35 31 con 30 l. con 3 37 1 birth l. death 38 24 Constantine l. Constans 41 3 l. Papias 43 17 the l. their 9 sute l. state 45 l. 21 read so I 46 14 ledging l. begging 55 31 erre but l. erre both 65 10 16 l. Peter and Peter 71 30 euer l. euen 76 2 l. 2 Tim 3 80 8 l. consent in the truth 101 17 disputing l. disprouing 109 24 restored l. restrained 137 35 reade sufficiently satisfied 138 33 course l. cause 148 31 l in the blisse 151 16 if l. of 152 29 true l. tree 156 2. vvhot l. vvhotter 25 l. infarced 158 10 l. in vvhich he 20 applied l. replied 174 26 l. peeces 175 Iam
3 l. Iohn 3 194 25 l. Hierom ad Euagrium 196 14 l. rashnes 203 36 authoritie l. austeritie 205 10 l. he hath li. 35 instinct l anstant 209 10 sauour l. labour 229 29 function l. faction 230 3 l. not oppresse 242 23 as l. is li. 29 gra l. gent 263 38 impuration l. impanation 265 35 lake l. booke 281 28 inioyning l. enioying 282 1 l. Constātinus line 3 l. Melciades li. 5. l. de vita 285 19 sanctifieth l. saith 287 3 l. seeing 298 19 computatiō l. translation 299 2 novve l. not 301 25 teacheth l. toucheth 302 20 l. Midrash 309 6 l. conueniencie 311 2 harpe l. harde 321 3 there l. three 332 30 priests l. praises 338 35 l. vvhich in such sense 350 5 but l. by 353 35 like by l. by and by 356 13 l. looke it by 357 29 l. Iupiter Corinthius and li. 31 Xanthicus 358 9 chap l. point 361 38 accept l. excepting 352 24 l. but seeing 361 12 held l. geld 387 26 Sacraments l. Sacramentaries 388 7 that l. the 388 31 l. Mat Hom 11 402 15 l. priests and li. 29 as long 408 10 l. Seraphicall li. 14 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 413 12 l. determinasset 431 13 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 437 21 protest l. protect 442 31 vvorke l. vvant 446 13 stranger l. strong 449 31 l. vvorke In 32 l. mysteries yet 450 34 l. Gennadius 456 3 nor l. or 460 36 l. of Terah 461 17 l. not to be 464 8 l. benedectione 472 25 l. put out as 473 11 l. a pledge 33 partly l. but Sander saith 477 16 yea l. vve 498 12 flesh l. fish 500 22 l. faithfully 506 4 l. may be 512 32 l. chapter being moued by 33 l. his spirituall 518 32 his l. this 528 put out oftē 536 9 vve l. ye 556 18 l. 1500 years ago 557 29 l. sufficiently 558 8 l. should not 563 16 l figuratiue 568 19 l. tokens 572 9 l. as Angels 610 1 l. our 611 7 specially l. figuratiuely 634 20 l but in 639 23 put out vvhich 651 6 l. Sedulius 2. 12 corrupt l. count 18 holy l. vnholy 667 24 l. times 669 24 they l. that 676 27 offences l. oftennes 678 9 l. Gennadius 682 13 to the earth l. on earth 678 17 eating l. entring 695 13 Ephes 3 l. Constantinople 698 3 after the bodie put in these vvords Members of Christ your mysterie is set on the table you li. 5 after subscribe put in these vvords Thou hearest therefore the bodie of Christ and do est ansvvere amen 699 6 l. of a 708 1 once l. ours 713 17 or l. of 21 dy l. by 717 26 apposeth l. opposeth 726 7 for Sander l. Ievvel 8 after eaten put in Sander 737 22 promised l. performed 741 27 alteri l. atteri 30 halteri l atteri 37 vvashing l. vvasting 754 34 l. at VVittenberg 16 death l. deitie 766 37 l. of bread 776 29 this l. these A REIOYNDER TO BRISTOWES REPLY IN DEFENCE OF ALLENS SCROLL OF ARTICLES AND BOOKE OF PVRGATORIE By W. F. D. in diuinitie The first Chapter I will shew briefely that Fulke confesseth out of the true Church to be no saluation FVlke hath alwayes beleeued since god gaue him knowledge of his trueth therefore freely confessed that out of the true Church of Christ there can be no saluation But whereas Bristowe inferreth that it is openly practized in the Popish Church to take in men by Baptisme first and then by reconciliation to receiue them if any went out or were cast out thereby to insinuate that the Popish Church is the true Church it is an argument voyde of al consequens For if the ceremoniall outward practise of baptisme reconciliation were able to proue the practizers to bee the true Church not onely the papistes but all other sects of heretikes practizing the same should be the true Church This is the first argument and as good as the best he maketh to proue the heresie of Popery to be the true Church of Christ. CAP. II. That he confesseth the knowne Church of the first 600 yearès after Christ and the knowne members thereof I beleeue that the Church of Christ hath continued from the Apostles vnto this day and shall doe from henceforth to the ende of the worlde And I do confesse that for 600. yeares and more after Christ the doctrine of saluation in all necessarie articles was taught in the knowne and visible Church although with all in the later times was receiued much corruption I acknowledge also the auncient writers Bishops Emperors and Monkes of those times to haue beene members of the same visible Church But whereas Bristowe saith to that I adde of the late Emperors I signifie that I meane the Emperors Constantine Iouian Valentinian c. to haue beene such as I woulde wish for I aunswere he is no good interpreter of my meaning For although in comparison of the later Emperors they were much more excellent yet I neuer ment to acknowledge them to be such as I would wishe for For both in the religion and in their manners diuers thinges are founde which I woulde wish had beene more agreeable to the worde of God yet were they in their time very godly and Christian Princes holding the foundation of Christ. I hope to their eternall saluation Other bymatters there be in this Chapter in which I am carped of Bristowe First that ignorantly I affirme somewhere namely Purg. 371. that the controuersie betwene the Britains and Saxons about the celebration of Easter was the same that was betweene Victor Bishoppe of Rome and the Christians of Asia whereas I saide they defended a ceremonie receiued of the East Church euen as the East church did long before against Victor 〈◊〉 of Rome for they defende it by example and authoritie of S Iohn the Euangelist Bed hist. lib. 3. cap. 25. and so did the Asians Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. Secondly where I saye that Athanasius and a fewe other that were banished and persecuted were the true Catholike Church he noteth in the margent such is his skill in the story of that time Belike he is offended that I say they were but a fewe that tooke parte with Athanasius How smal or great my skill is in the storie of that time Bristows practise of logike is but little which remembreth not that many fewe are relatiues and spoken in comparison I say againe they were but few in comparison of the Arrians that tooke parte with Athanasius against his aduersaries whē he was banished How many councels helde the Arrians in the East against the trueth The Emperor himselfe infected with the heresie let the worlde iudge where the greater shewe of multitude was with the Emperor and with the councels or with Athanasius and his fautors Yea when Liberius Bishop of Rome in the West had subscribed to the same heresie of the Arrians
But my ignorance is noted of Bristow for saying that superstition was riper in the Latine Church where the seate of Antichrist was appointed to be set vp not knowing that all the olde heresies haue spronge of the Grekes against whome were helde the first foure generall Councels A pithie reason shewing no lesse Logike then knowledge of the Churche storie Foure heresies were condemned by foure councels therefore all olde heresies sprong of the Grecians But I will aske of Bristowe whether Nouatus or Nouatianus captaine of the Nouatians was of the Latine or Greeke Church Iouinian Vigilantius are counted of him to be as great heretikes as Arrius and Macedonius but whence did they spring out of Greece or frō the Latines What shall I name the Donatistes Pelagians Celestians Priscillianistes al which sprange out of the Latine Church And yet it is true that Vincentius affirmeth that vntill the dayes of Stephanus the Bishoppes of the Romaine Church had alwayes earnestly defended the integritie of religion once receiued which he speaketh not as a singular prayse of that Church only for he saith of the same matter immediately before Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia All places are full of such examples And that which Bristow citeth out of Ruffinus in exp Symb that no heresie did spring at Rome is to be vnderstode onely of such heresies as he speaketh of before against the danger of which some clauses were added to the creede For otherwise Ruffinus could not forget what hee him selfe had translated out of Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 33. of Nouatus which being a Priest of the Church of Rome was author of the heresie of the Nouatians 2 What he sayeth of the whole Church in some of those times I say the practise of prayer for the dead is not generall because it is not to be founde in the most auncient times Bristow asketh if nothing be generall but that I finde as though he could find any thing for 200 yeares but in Tertullian the Montanist But the later practise for places he sayeth is generall if I should vrge him to proue it he could not do it I confesse it was common but for all the later time it was not generall The Waldenses for 500. of the last yeares practised it not and almost in euery age some are noted which regarded it not or denyed it 3. To what Origen he confesseth the doctors to referre it to witte vnto scripture and tradition of the fathers I confesse that some of the fathers referre the custom of praying for the dead to the Scriptures and some to the tradition of the Apostles but neither of both truely Bristowe compareth the case with fasting wherof Augustine sayeth that it is euidently commaunded in scripture but the dayes not prescribed So is prayer for the dead but the dayes times and particular prayers are referred to the tradition I aunswere when we see as good scripture for prayer for the dead as wee see for fasting we will say the cases are like How Tertullian denyed prayer and oblation for the dead to be taken out of the scriptures is referred to the ninth Chapter where it shall be answered But he is fayne to denye sayeth Bristowe the most certeine workes of the Apostles schollers Clemens Romanus and Dionysius Areopagita saying that we haue them of some counterfaiting knaue c. quoting for my saying Pur. 268. which I desire the reader to peruse and tell mee how honest a man he is that chargeth a man to say of the works of Clemens and Dionyse that which I speake onely and expressely of the counterfeit epistles of Clemens Concerning the change of the olde Liturgies we shall heare more in the sixt Chapter 4 He contraiewise feareth not nor basheth not to say they had it from the diuell and his lymmes I see no cause why I should feare or bash to affirme that all errours came from the diuell who is a lyer and the father of lyes Neither is it any absurditie to saye that the yerely oblations of thanksgiuing for the dead are heathenish as well as the oblations for the birthes But it is an impudent slaunder that he chargeth mine owne mouth to confesse that the whore of Babylon is the church at the farthest by S. Augustines time which hath patched vp her purgatory sacrifices for the dead for purgatorie and sacrifice for the dead was scarse hatched in S. Augustines time when Augustine him selfe confessed it might be doubted whether there be any such purging fire or no. 5. As touching the Popes supremacy Concerning the Popes primacy he chargeth mee to teach that the Church vanished quite away vpon a souden when Phocas sold the primacie to Bonifacius and yet no man then in the worlde that went out from the Pope The first point is a shamelesse slaunder for I neuer taught that the church vanished quite away the second is true if it be rightly vnderstood no man went from the Pope as from a true member of the church but the Pope rather went out of the church into an antichristian tyrannie But vnderstanding his saying to be that no man departed from the Popes authoritie it is vtterly false for notwithstanding the sale of Phocas the Greeke church neuer yelded to his supremacie The church of Rauenna in Italy long time after withstoode his tyranny and was separated from him in causa autocephalias that shee would haue no head ouer her but he◠owne bishop as the histories affirme Bristowe to excuse the Pope for doing contrarie to Gregories reproofe of the bishop of Constantinople sayeth that he neuer vseth the style of vniuersall bishop but of s 〈…〉 seruorum the seruant of seruants as though it was for the bare style and vsurpation of the title that Gregorie was so earnest and not for the vniuersall authoririe which was claimed by that style in which respect Gregory of humilitie the rest of his successors of hypocrisie called them selues seruants of the seruants of God Now at length Bristowe alledgeth three causes of this his tedious rehearsall of my sayings first that the reader may see in how many points we dissēt frō them whome we confesse to haue bene of the true church I answer so long as we agree in the foundation we are all of one church The second cause that the reader may see I confesse the Papistes to agree with them of the true church in the same A great glorie that you agree with them in a fewe errors and dissent in the most waightie matters of saluation Thirdly that I haue not for these points or any depēding of these iust cause to denye the Papists the true church c. If you erred onely in these points as they did holding all other trueth which those auncient fathers helde wee woulde no more deny you to be members of the true church than wee do them but seeing beside these errors you hold many blasphemous heresies which they neuer helde and
vtterly deny the office of Christ the foundation of our saluation therefore wee iustly deny you to be of the true church of Christ. Neither is your excuse to be admitted that you erre by authoritie of them who if the trueth had bene as plainly reuealed vnto them out of the scriptures as it is to you would neuer haue so obstinatly defended their errors but as they alwayes professed yelded to the trueth against custome prescription of time authoritie of councels or any practise whatsoeuer CAP. IIII. That he chargeth the sayde primitiue true church with sundry errors wherewith he neither doeth nor will nor can charge vs. I affirme that diuerse godly fathers of the primitiue church held sundry errors which the Papists holde not at this daye Also that the auncient church erred in som points and practise wherewith I will not charge the popish church except they charge them selues But that I should confesse as Bristowe sayeth That there may be a company which erreth not onely some principall members but also the whole body of it and which erreth obstinatly and moreouer which erreth the grossest errors that can be them 〈◊〉 no small number and yet the same company may be the truâ— church This is vtterly false I neuer made such confession neither can Bristow bring any wordes of mine that sound to the same effecte and therefore I here charge him before God and the worlde for a shamelesse lyer and an vngodly slaunderer As for the errors wherewith I charge either the auncient writers or the auncient church of Rome do followe afterward discussed in the sixth Chapter CAP. V. What reason he rendreth why they in those auncient timeâ— had the true church notwithstanding these their errors First repeating my confessions That the true church may erre that it hath erred in some articles wherein we erre in many other wherein we do not erre wherof it followeth plainly qd Bristowe that neither our erring nor these our errors no nor any other our errors are alone sufficient for him to depriue vs of the true church Marke this consequens of Bristowe some errors which the Papistes hold common with the olde church cannot depriue them of the true church ergo none other errors that they hold contrary to the auncient church are alone sufficient to depriue them This is popish logike And yet I will in this argument charge his conscience rather then his science for common sense abhorreth such reasoning from the particular to the vniuersall But let vs see if such reason as alloweth the fathers to haue had the true church notwithstanding their errors may serue the Papistes to proue them the true church their errors notwithstanding The reason I alledge that the fathers had the true church is because they held the onely foundation Iesus Christ and the article of iustification by the onely mercie of God Now sayth Bristowe who knoweth not that we beleeue in the onely sonne of God and in the onely mercy of God and that therefore wee looke not to be saued by our owne works that is which we did without him in Paganisme Iudaisme or Caluinisme in heresie or deadly sinne c. but onely by his workes that is by his sacraments and the good deedes that of his great mercy he hath created in vs in Christ Iesus c. therefore the same reason serueth vs notwithstanding our errors I answere your minor is false you beleue not in the onely begotten sonne of God because you beleue not in God Cyprian de duplici Martyrio sayeth Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the trust of all his felicitie You place not your trust in God alone for you trust in your merites yea in the merites of others both liuing and dead and in an hundreth things beside God alone Secondly where you say you beleeue in the onely mercy of God it is false for you beleeue no iustification by the only mercy and grace of God which excludeth all workes and merites as the Apostle sayeth Rom. 11. Thirdly you says you beleue to be saued by his sacraments which in deede after a sort are sayde to saue vs namely not as principal â—fficient causes but as instruments and meanes that god â—seth to confirme his promises which proceede of his onely grace and mercy Fourthly you saye you beleeue to be saued by those good deeds that God of his mercy hath created in vs which plainly declareth that you looke not to be saued by the onely grace mercy of God purchased by the redemption of Christ but by such good workes as proceede from your selues although you ascribe vnto the grace of God that you be able to do them as both the Pharisee did which iustified him selfe by his owne workes and yet acknowledged God to be the author of them in him Luk. 18. And the Pelagians also affirmed generally that by Gods grace we are saued because God of his grace hath giuen such a lawe by keeping whereof wee might attaine to saluation But you cite S. Paul Tit. 3. to shewe that his mercie sacrament may stande together which no man denyeth yet can you not shewe that his mercie is so tyed to his sacrament that he saueth not without it For Abraham was iustified by faith before he was circumcised and receiued circumcision as a seale of the faith he had being vncircumcised Rom. 4. And where the Apostle speaketh of workes generally excluding them from being cause of our saluation you restreine theÌ„ only to works done before baptisme for this cursed glose you make vpon the text Not for any workes of * righteousness which we did before baptisme say you but for his mercie hee hath saued vs by baptisme But that S. Paul excludeth al maner of works done by vs from iustification the sentence following declareth That being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life For grace and workes can neuer stande as a ioynt efficient cause Rom. 11. but the one of necessitie excludeth the other As for the receiuing of the Sacramentes is no worke of ours as you truely say but an accepting of the grace which God giueth The place Ephes. 2. which you â—ite to proue that we are saued by good workes done after baptisme is cleane against you if you had rehetsed the whole text You are saued saith S. Paul by grace through faith and this not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared that we should walke in them The argument of S. Paul is taken out of the effect Good workes are the effect and aide of our iustification ergo not the efficient cause thereof And marke againe that hee saith we are saued by grace and not of
of the diuine scripture admonishing vs and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners and we shal come vnto that fire in which of what sort euery mans work is the fire shall trie And as I thinke it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire Although one be Paul or Peter yet he commeth to that fire But they that are such do heare Although thou passe through fire the flame â—hal not burn thee But if any be a sinner like me he shal â—ome in deede vnto that fire as Peter Paul but he shall â—ot so passe through it as Peter Paul More of his geâ—eral purgation of al men and not the damned onely you â—ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo c. Thou seâ—st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life hath neede of purification c. yet saith Bristow that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour there is no word which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely for thus he writeth in the same place Sunt alia c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all in which it doth not falsely accuse him neither can be so excused by his defenders especially coÌ„cerning purgation deliueraÌ„ce and againe after long time the reuolution vnto the same euils of euery reasonable creature I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of euery reasonable creature speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also wherefore it is manifest that Origen erred not only about hell heauen and the purgation of the damned but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument as he doth in scorne There is no such Purgatorie as Origen Carpocrates would haue therefore there is no purgatorie at all But what should Carpocrates come in this title but for a sorie sophisme wheÌ„ we speake of Origen onely Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely it should be thus There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour such as Origens fire is the fire that the papistes would haue therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue Releeuing of the dead by prayer If the dead be not releeued we say quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation And for this saying hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is a purgation either of the man or of the worke Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that whereof hee saith nothing at all euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable I shewed by that of the most auncient writers The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead with inuocations and to redeem them with oyle balme and water and inuocations said ouer their heades as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus Nowe commeth Bristowe and in many needelesse words rehearseth other partes of their heresie with their manner of seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them by a counterfait marriage and baptisme and by anoynting with balme c. concluding that this practise of theirs maketh as much against true baptisme solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead anealing or anoynting c. Likewise might they conclude that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention from that which is the ordinance of God And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention but by the holy scriptures Separating therefore baptisme and marrying which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures from the rest that haue no ground in the same prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters were the inuention of heretikes Howbeit saith Bristowe of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde No was Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much could not see that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt c. Other there be that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing powring on their heads oyle water or the foresaid oyntment with water and with the foresaid inuocations c Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead which they vttered before for the liuing But if the Heracleonites should faile mee I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of the Papistes because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist and especially in his booke de anima That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes Bristow wil not denye But he asketh whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes Howe then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus from that which he hath common with the catholike church I deliuered a rule euen nowe concerning the practise of the Heracleonites Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures but they are found in a disciple of Montanus therfore they stinke of Montanisme Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike there is no mention of prayer for the dead or suffering after this life of the faithfull Last of all Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly that Paracletus the comforter by which he meant the spirite of Montanus had reuealed very often that euery small offence must be punished after this life in that the soule of any except martyrs shall not go immediatly into Paradise but tarie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church Which saying sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by
you quoted you needed not to haue made a question whether this opiniō were Montanisme or no. But when you can saye nothing against this assertion your selfe you would make me vncertein of it and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine because in one place before I come to the found proofe of it I say it is a probable coniecture And doeth it followe therefore that I doubt of it because I offer a probable coniecture to other mens vnderstanding before by order of the discourse I am brought to the manifest probation of it The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulnesse shewe your ordinarie manner of collections And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought but that the Montanistes added prayers for the spirites of them that were dead c. Purg. 417. What vncerteintie is of that matter whereof it is not otherwise to be thought Againe Finally it appeareth that the faithfull in Tertullians time allowed no prayers for the dead Pur. 419. Call you that doubtfull which appeareth by plaine demonstration before pag. 417 But for all your fine frumpe in the margent all in Tertulian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not mention it is a probable coniecture that prayer for the dead whereof Tertullian speaketh was vsed onely in the conuenticles of Montanistes because Cyprian which long after liued in Carthage in all his workes maketh no mention of prayers for the dead But I weene Cyprian maketh expresse mention of prayers for the dead by my confession as Bristowe would haue men thinke because I saye of one place alledged by Allen that it hath some couler for Purgatorie which by flowe of arguments I easely washe of that I neede not sticke in the lyme as Bristowe sayeth I doe but howe I am fastened therein he sayeth neuer a worde Oblations for the dead I sayde that oblations for the dead although at the first they were but of thankesgiuing were taken of the Gentiles as appeareth by Tertulliā who counteth them of one originall or beginning with oblations for the birth dayes falsely fathering them vpon tradition of the Apostles as he doth other vanities in the same place whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus a Papist affirming that by the Canons of the Nicen councell and other councels which he had seene in librarijs they were abrogated and taken away Bristowe sayeth he is but a poore antiquarie which knoweth not that Natalitia in olde time were as they nowe are the dayes of Martyrs sufferings And yet he can name neuer an olde writer iustly that calleth them natalitia He nameth in deede Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs What print he followeth I knowe not but my booke hath natalibus and not natalitijs betweene which wordes there is some difference As for Martyrologies whether hee sendeth vs I knowe none of such antiquitie that they may be iudges in this case Tullie is a better witnesse what natalitia being a substantiue in olde time did signifie namely the feasts that were kept for the ioye of mens birthdaye in Ant. Hodie non descendit Antonius Cur Dat natalitia in hortis Antonie commeth not downe to day Why so He keepeth the feaste of his birthdaye in his garden Wherefore Pamelius as great an antiquarie as you make him vniustly reproueth Rhenanus for vnderstanding natalitia in Tertullian to be feastes of the birthdayes vsed after the example of the Gentiles The places you cite out of Cyprian speake neither of natales nor natalitia but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemoration or remembrance of the Martyrs sufferings which could be none other but sacrifices of thankesgiuing according to your owne doctrine Wherefore you shewe nothing to the contrary but that Tertullian vsing the worde natalitia vnderstandeth it for feastes of the birthdaye and not of the death of Martyrs And beside the authoritie of Rhenanus and Tully for the signification of the worde natalitia I oppose against you these reasons First that he addeth not the name of Martyrs as all they that vse natalitia or natales for the daye of their departure but sayeth generally pro natalitijs Secondly that he spake immediatly before of oblations pro defunctis for the dead which you vnderstande for all faithfull departed out of the worlde therefore pro natalitijs signifyeth the oblation for the birth of all Christians come into the worlde Thirdly seeing he had before named oblations for the dead it were absurde to vnderstand pro natalitijs for the dead also without any more explication Fourthly if natalitia should signifie the feastes of the death of Martyrs as you say it will followe also which I do vrge of the place that oblations pro defunctis for the dead were but oblations of thankesgiuing as those for the death of Martyrs which are conteined in one worde or phrase As for that you adde out of Origen in Iob. lib 3. Wee celebrate not the daye of birth c. But the daye of death sheweth the custome of the Greeke Church and not of the Latine and their celebrating of their daye of birth with ioye and thankesgiuing as the daye of the beginning of felicitie and ende of all sorrowes vnto the deade cleane ouerthroweth your opinion of Purgatorie and prayer for the dead as in his time not yet entred into the Greeke Church Beside that he speaketh of the death of all men and not of Martyrs onely as you violently would wrest him Beeres to carry home the corpses He maketh a foolish quarell vppon my saying that George of Alexandria inuented beeres for lucres sake as the Papistes their bearing clothes and other toyes for funerall pompe And first he sayeth that George did not inuent beeres For Epiphanius sayeth he deuised to make the number of them certeine and without those that he ordeined no corps to be buryed and all for lucres sake Ep. H. 76. I neuer thought that they carryed dead men on their neckes like beastes to the graue before Georges dayes and therefore they had some kinde of comely carriage for them But I sayed truely that George inuented peculiar beeres for lucres sake as the Papistes vse their bearing clothes and like stuffe Secondly he sayeth I commend such ceremonies as are conuenient for laying vp of the corps I do so But superstitious beereclothes and other ceremonies of poperie so dearly payde for are neither needfull nor conuenient Againe he asketh whether I thinke it much that the Church should reape their carnalia to whome shee soweth spiritualia No verily but I could neuer learn out of the scriptures that bearing cloathes crosses candels torches c. were such spiritualia as the ministers of the Church ought to sowe Last of all where he asketh whether I would prouide a beere and bearing cloathes against I be buryed rather then to paye my dueties to
necessarie an article of faith that the Papistes striue for nothing so much at this daye as for that which was there condemned by the Councell Quibus sic factis sanctissimus dominus noster Papa respondendo ad praedicta quòd omnia singula determinata conclusa decreta in materiis fidci per praesent concilium conciliariter tenere inuiolabiliter seruâ—â— volebat nunquam contraire quoquo modo Ipsáque sic conciliariter facta approbat ratificat non aliter nec alio modo Const. Sess. 45. which things being so done our moâ—te holy lorde the Pope sayde answering to the foresayde things that he would holde and keepe inuiolable all and singular things determined concluded and decreede in matters of faith by the present Councell in fourme of Councell and that he would neuer go against them by any meanes And the same things so done in forme of Councell he approueth and ratifyeth and not otherwise nor after any other manner Nowe it is certeine that nothing was done or decreede more Councellike then that solemne canon That the Councel is aboue the Pope and hath authoritie to depose the Pope which Pope Iohn 23. confirmed and confessed that the Councell could not erre c. And therefore it is vtterly false that Pope Martin confirmed those determinations alone which were against the errours of Wicliff Hus Hieronym at the petition of the Polonian Amâ— assadour as Bristowe sayth For the request was made vnto the Pope not by one Ambassadour but by diuerse and them not from the king of Polonia onely but also from the duke of Lituania that a certeine booke of one fryer Iohn Falkenberge conteining notable heresies as they said condemned by the deputies of the Councel c. might be condemned in an open session of the Councel so pronounced before the Councel were dissolued otherwise they protested in that name of their princes that they susteined grieuance would appeale vnto the next Councell vnto whom the Pope answered as before generally that whatsoeuer was decreed by the Councel in fourme of a Councell concerning matter of faith he did 〈…〉 owe and woulde obserue and according to a decre of 〈…〉 e same councell calleth another councell to follow a â—apia c. shewing therein not onely his iudgement but â—lso his obedience to the decree of the Councel Concerâ—ing Nicolaus 5. Bristow saith he did but onely ratifie â—â—e collations of benefices and such like things done in â—â—e Councell of Basil. Herevnto I aunswere the wordes â—re so generall in that Bull of approbation of thinges câ—acted and done in the councell of Basil by Pope Nicoâ—as as they may containe all manner of decrees of the same Councell Omnia singula tam iustitiam c. all euery thing concerning as well iustice as grace in persons or places which in time of the grauntes and other the premisses obeyed our foresaide reuerende and welbeloued brother Amadeus Cardinall Bishop Legat and Vicar aforesaid then called Felix the fift and the congregated aforesaide or either of them as well by the Councell of Basil which then was and Amadeus in his obedience called Felix the fifte as also them which in the cities of Basil and Lausanna remained congregated vnder the name of a generall councell or any other or others by his or either of their authoritie yea legates de latere delegates or any other whomsoeuer froÌ„ theÌ„ or either of them hauing power ioyntly or seuerally howe soeuer done performed granted giuen indulted disposed ordeined although they be greter weightier matters or of any other nature whatsoeuer froÌ„ the premises such as require to be specially expressed which we wil decree to be accoÌ„pted as if they were specially expressed with all things therof following And also al euery thing don by the ordinaries in the same places for the benefite of peace vnity of the church of our own motion of our certain knoledg of the fulnes of the apostolike power by the councell assent of our reuerende brethren the Cardinals of the holy church of R. by tenor of these present we approue ratifie also confirm wil haue to be taken for ratified coÌ„firmed Here you se al euery thing done ordeined in the Councell of Basil whatsoeuer they be expressed or not expressed confirmed and ratified by the Bull of Pope Nicholas the 5. And in the Councell of Basil the councell of Constance and especially that decree of the superioritie of the councell aboue the Pope was decreed pope Eugenius for his contumacie was deposed and another elected all whose actes also pope Nicolas confirmeth and ratifieth Likewise where as Bristowe saith that Pope Eugenius â—he 4. did no more but declare that the councell of Basil from the beginning to a certaine time was a lawfull councell and lawfully continuated The truth is hee did both by his owne Buls and by his owne deputies a great deale more then Bristow confesseth and euen by this that he confesseth it is easie to proue that Eugenius graunted the councel to be aboue the pope For Eugenius had done what he coulde to dissolue the councell of Basil and sent out three buls for the same purpose notwithstanding the councell was continued by authoritie of the councell against his decrees wherfore seeing he declared as Bristowe confesseth that the councell was lawfully continued contrary to his decrees which he was compelled to reuoke he declared that the councell was aboue the pope and had authoritie to controll him and his decrees And that he did more then Bristowe saith he did It is manifest in the recorde of the councell session 16. That Eugenius declared the councell of Basill to be lawfull and lawfully continued vntill Anno dom 1433. 18. Cal. Ian. reuoking three bulles by which he had taken vpon him before to dissolue the same councell in which bulles hee complained that the councell vsurped autoritie aboue the pope Afterwarde sess 17. Anno. 1434. 24. of April being Saturday the Popes legates were incorporated into the councell of Basil being sworne to defende the councell and by speciall words the decree of the councel of Constance Sessi 4. by which the councell is decreed to be aboue the Pope and the Pope bound to obey the councell and the decrees thereof And 6. Cal. Maij. The praesidents of pope Eugenius were admitted with these conditions vnder written Videlicet sine omni iurisdictione coactiuo saluo etiam modo procedendi in hoc sacro concilio hactenus obseruato That is to say without all iurisdiction of compelling also hauing the manner of proceeding heâ—herto obserued in this holy councell By this you see â—hat pope Eugenius did not onely declare the councell 〈◊〉 be lawfully continued but also he declared his owne â—rror in reuoking of his bulles of dissolution Also by â—is legates he sware to defend the councel and to keepe â—he decree of the councel of Constance sessi 4. which was â—ade against the
Popes superioritie ouer the councell And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such preâ—idency as the councell woulde graunt without all iuâ—isdiction of compulsion being himselfe compelled to â—â—taine that order of proceeding which the councell before â—is presidencie was admitted had obserued What Leo â—he tenth in his Laterane councell decreed against the â—ouncell of Basil I haue nothing to doe with it except 〈◊〉 be to proue that one pope going against the decrees of â—nother pope and one councell against another that â—either of both is to be credited Howe childish my inâ—ultation is howe voide of victorie my triumph howe â—nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are as Bristow scofâ—eth I leaue to all reasonable men to consider 3. Touching the Constance councels presumption I sayd it was horrible praesumption that the councell of Constance decreede contrarie to the worde of God in plaine wordes That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to bee receiued in both kindes and that the faithfull in the primitiue Church did so receiue it yet the custome of the Church of Rome shall preuaile and whosoeuer saith contrarie it â—an heretike These wordes he saith I print as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed in a distincte letter as the plaine wordes of the councell whereas these are not the wordes of the councell Heere is the quarell No sir I neuer ment to print these wordes as the wordes of the councell but as the summe and contente of them which because they were large I woulde not set downe at large in a bymatter But now being urged with falsification or at least false collectioÌ„ I wil set theÌ„ down as they a 〈…〉 CoÌ„ Const sessâ— 13. wtout any such interruptions as is vsâ—al with you to make that you might carie away the simple readen mind from the true sense of theÌ„ Cùm in nonnullis c. wheras in certaine partes of the worlde certeine parsons presume rashly to affirme that Christian people ought to receiue the sacrament of that Euchariste vnder both kindes oâ— bread wine do communicate the lay people euerie where not onely vnder the kind of bread but also vnder 〈◊〉 kinde of wine yea after supper or otherwise not fasting and stubbernely affirme that they ought so to be communicated against the laudable custome of the church resonably approued which as sacrilegious damnably they goe about to reproue hereof it is that this present holy generall councell of Constance lawfully gathered together in the holyghost entending to prouide for the saluation of the faithfull against this error hauing had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the lawe of god and of man declareth decreeth defineth that although Christ after supper did institute minister vnto his disciples this holy sacrament vnder both kindes of bread wine yet this notwithstanding the laudable authoritie of holy Canons the approued custome of the Church hath obserued doth obserue that this sacrament ought not to be made after supper neither to be receiued of the faithful not fasting but in case of sicknesse or other necessitie of right or of the Church graunted or admitted And as this custome to auoide certeine daungers and offences is reasonably brought in that although in the primitiue church this sacrament was receiued of the faithfull vnder both kinds afterward of theÌ„ which make it it is receiued vnder both kinds of the lay people only vnder the kind of bread seeing it ought most stedfastly to be beleeued by no meanes to be doubted but that the whole bodie and bloud of Christ is truly coÌ„tained as wel vnder the kind of bread as vnder the kind of wine WhervpoÌ„ seeing such a custome by the church holy fathers is reasonably brought in hath beene very long obserued it must be takeÌ„ for a law which it is not lawful to reproue or with out the authority of the church to change at mens pleasure â—herfore to say that to keep this custom or law is sacrilege 〈◊〉 vnlawfull it ought to be iudged erroneous and they â—hich stubbernly affirme the contrary of the premisses are 〈◊〉 be driuen away as heretiks to be greuosly punished â—y that dyocessanes of the places or their officials or by the inâ—uisitor of heretical prauity in those kingdomes or proâ—inces in which any thing perhaps shal be attempted or â—resumed against this decree according to the Canonicall â—nd lawful functions which haue ben solemnly inveÌ„ted 〈◊〉 fauour of the Catholike faith against heretikes and â—heir fautors Here you see the prelates of the councel take â—pon theÌ„ as great authority in altering the matter of the saâ—rament which is a necessarie part of the institutioÌ„ therof â—s in ordering the time in which it shal be ministred which â—s no part of the institution therof Also that they confes that â—n the primitiue church the sacrament was receiued in both â—inds therfore they are presuÌ„ptuous to say hoc noÌ„ obstaÌ„te â—his notwtstaÌ„ding the custome of later yeares brought in â—s reasonable shal be obserued as a law the gainsayers â—herof being coÌ„deÌ„ned punished as heretikes Brist caâ—illeth that they say not the custome of the church of Rome as I said As though wheÌ„ they speake of the custome of the church they meane any other church but the church of R. Such bables B. hath to couer their blasphemous sacriâ—legious presumption Touching certain false interpretations of scripture To color the false interpretatioÌ„s folowing he coÌ„meÌ„deth the sayings of August de doct Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth euery maÌ„ principally to shoote at that sense of the writer in expositioÌ„ of the scripture but if he misse that sense hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith or is profitable to build charity towards god our neighbor he is not perniciously deceiued c. VpoÌ„ this Allen in his offer to that protestaÌ„t saith Ar. 86. 87. Let any man proue vnto me that the true only church of god may falsely interprete any sentence of holy scripture I recant This generall offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye or wilfully lying as is conteined in Saint Augustines sayinges vnto whiche Bristowe woulde nowe seeme to make relation I did accept And first I proued that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Westerne Church did falsely interprete this scripture Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c. and that to maintaine a false opinion of the necessitie of the communion for all persons and euen infantes that should haue life euerlasting and therefore repugnant to right faith as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter Secondly I noted diuerse places of scripture not onely falsely but also ridiculously expouÌ„ded in the second councell of Nice to maintaine idolatrie against the expresse commaundement of God and therefore contrary to the right faith
ohn 14. ver 16. of the comforter euen the spirit of truth to remaine with vs for euer and to leade vs into al truth If the later bee not restored to the Apostles howe can Bristowe proue that it must needes bee vnderstoode of 〈…〉 e whole Church onely and not of euery member s 〈…〉 g our sauiour Christ Iohn 17. prayeth not onely for 〈…〉 is Apostles but for all and euery one that should be 〈…〉 eeue in him through their preaching that they might 〈…〉 e sanctified in the trueth which is the worde of God â—nd eueÌ„ in the verie place cited Iohn 14. ver 15. promiseth 〈…〉 he comforter the spirite of trueth to euerye one 〈…〉 hat beleeueth in him And as he sent his spirite to leade 〈…〉 he Apostles into all trueth so his Apostles fayled not to deliuer that trueth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subiect to forgetful 〈…〉 and corruption then the other Wherefore the Church 〈◊〉 called the piller of trueth 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil 〈…〉 vpon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles Ep 〈…〉 2. which had the whole trueth of the gospel reuealed 〈◊〉 to them not because the Church shoulde haue the spirite of trueth to reueale any trueth vnto her which w 〈…〉 not reuealed to the Apostles and by them as well iâ— their writings as in their preachings So that the sa 〈…〉 gift of the spirite being in the whole Church that is iâ— euerie member and distinct from the gift of the spirite in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing the argument by me set downe is sound no sophisme at all 2 That the Church may be diuorced I neuer saide that the true Catholike church of Christ may be diuorced from him but the visible particular Church of some place time as the prophet Esay complaineth that the church of Ierusalem by idolatrie superstition had separated her selfe from Christ was refused of him Esa. 1. How is the faithfull citie become an haâ—lot c. And so may the prophet say to the church of Rome Brist asketh whether the prophet do say so to Rome yea â—erely For the idolatrie of Rome is nothing lesse in this time then it was in his time of IerusaleÌ„ But I am too too ignorant Bristow saith in the scriptures if I know not herein the difference betweene the synagogue of the Iewes and the Church of Christ to wit that the synagogue with her IerusaleÌ„ might shuld be diuorced but the Church of Christ with her Ierusalem which is Rome saith Bristow if you haue any sight in the Actes of the Apostles should neuer nor neuer might be diuorced c. If mine ignorance be so great why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me that the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation consisting of the Gentiles may not as wel be separated from him as the Church of Christ before his incarnation consisting of the Iewes As for 〈◊〉 diuorcement you imagine of all the whole on the 〈…〉 th it neuer was ne shal be Againe that Rome is the 〈…〉 usalem of the Church of Christ where finde you in 〈…〉 c Acts of the Apostles which haue so good sight in 〈…〉 em I gesse this is your argument S. Luke beginneth 〈…〉 s storâ—e at Ierusalem and endeth at Rome ergo Rome the Ierusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you 〈…〉 n proue the consequens of this argument I wil say as 〈…〉 ou say In the meane time I say there is small likely 〈…〉 od that Rome should be the Ierusalem of the Church 〈…〉 f Christ seeing Peter being at Rome is not once meÌ„ti 〈…〉 ed in all the Actes of the Apostles nor in any other 〈…〉 ooke of holy scripture But if you had as great sight 〈◊〉 the Epistle to the Galathians as you imagine your 〈…〉 lfe to haue in the Actes of the Apostles there might 〈…〉 ou learne Cap. 4. that the Ierusalem of the Church of â—hrist is not Rome on earth but Ierusalem which is a 〈…〉 oâ—e which is the mother of vs all As for the reiecting 〈…〉 f the Iewes and calling of the Gentiles euen vntill the 〈…〉 lnesse and the restoring of the Iewes of which you pro 〈…〉 hecy without the booke that they shal be al Christened in 〈…〉 e end of the world are matters impertineÌ„t to this que 〈…〉 tion of the visible Churches diuorcement 3 That euen the Church of Christ shoulde prepare the way 〈…〉 o Antichrist This saith Bristow is a straunge imagination of him and his fellowes It is the totall summe of all their new diuinitie yet no warrant at all they haue for it out of the scripture But I pray you Bristowe who euer saide that the Church of Christe prepared the way to Antichrist I said Ar. 35. Manie abuses entred into the Church of Christ immediately after the Apostles time which the diuel planted as a preparatiue for antichrist Do I not here plainely say the diuell planted them as a preparatiue Againe Ar. 38. I saide The scripture telleth vs that the mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and reuelation of Antichrist wrought euen in S. Paules tim 〈…〉 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth that general is my worâ— and not saint Paules I confesse but it is S. Paules m 〈…〉 ning which speaketh not of a small or particular but 〈◊〉 that great and generall defection which in other pa 〈…〉 of scripture is foreshewed to bee from Christ vnto Antichrist Apoc. 13. 17. and yet not so generall but th 〈…〉 Christ shall haue his Church still vpon earth Secondlâ— he demaundeth whether the scripture tell me that it wrâ—ugâ— in the Church of Christ and aunswereth himselfe no wordâ— so 〈◊〉 wrought in the persecuters c. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so Is open persecution a mysteâ—iâ— of iniquitie You say better in the seducers and where began the seducers but in the visible Church although they be no members of the true and Catholike Churchâ— That our heresie is the last or next the last before the reuelation before you goe about to shewe as you promise you must proue it to bee an heresie otherwise then the religion of Christ was or the Infidels Iewes Gentileâ— called an heresie That the Church of Christ is alwayes a conâ—empâ—ible companie I neuer saide so but after diuerse authorities and reâ—sons brought to shewe howe the worlde accounteth of the Church I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in thâ— sight of God and his sancts is most glorious and honorable so in the sight of the worlde it hath alwayes beene most base and contemptible To the scriptures I alledge 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the crosse and Christ crucified thereon which are all the glorie of the Church are condemned of the worlde
qui matrimonis contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt They saie that Elders or Priests which haue ioyned them selues in matrimony ought to be despised Therefore these catholique Bishops thought those Priests good ones which did ioyne them selues in matrimony so they made their Canon Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum c. If any man make difference of a married Priest as though by occasion of his marriage he ought not to offer and doth therfore absteine from his oblation let him be accursed Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane councell decreeth Cap. 10. Diaconi quicunque c. Whosoeuer be ordeyned Deacons if at the same time when they were ordeined they protested saying that they would be ioyned in marriage because they could not so continue if afterwarde they haue married wiues let them remaine in the ministerie because the Bishop hath giuen them licence But so many as haue helde their peace and taken imposition of handes professing continencie and afterwarde be ioyned in marriage ought to ceasse from the ministerie Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo lib 4. allowing the tradition of the orientall Churches for marriage of theyr Church ministers Aliter se Orientalium c. The tradition of the Easterne Churches hath it otherwise and otherwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome For the Priests Deacons and Subdeacons of their Churches are coupled in marriage but none of the Priestes of this Church from the Subdeacon vnto the Bishoppe hath licence to enter into mariage It were hard if there were neuer a good one among all the Cleargie of the East Churches since the Apostles time which haue ben married and yet are To conclude I trust it is apparant to the indifferent reader that such texts of Scripture as I alledged in those two bookes which Bristow vndertaketh in this confuse manner to confute were rightly applyed and without all violence or wresting doe proue sufficiently that for which they were called to witnesse And as for the popish conference of Scriptures wherof Bristowe once againe with great lothsomnesse doeth bragge how sound it is you may perceiue by this example taste giuen by him in this Chapter Wherefore I maruell much what learned ministers of our church these were whom Bristow affirmeth being in number more then a dozen and diuerse of no vulgar wittes by their onely hearing of your conference of scriptures to haue become papists By like some vagabonde irregular and vnhonest persons being depriued of their ministerie for their vngodly behauiour haue sought fauour among them by reuolting or at least counterfaiting to be reuolted to papistrie when they be of no religion commended by Bristow for their wittes but neither for their honestie nor learning CAP. IX To defende that the doctors as they be confessed to be ours in very many pointes so they be ours in all pointes and the Protestants in no point All the doctors sayings that he alledgeth are examined and answered The first part of his doctors generally his challenging words I confesse not the doctors to be yours in very manye points nor simply in fewe pointes nor all in any point of controuersie but graunting that for a fewe errours which you haue common with them in which you also farre exceede them as in prayers for the dead prayers to saintes some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies I affirme that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controuersie they are either all with vs or not one against vs. 2 A generall answere to his challenge declaring that 〈◊〉 neede not to answere his doctors particularly His first reason is because I sayde wee stande for authoritie onely to the iudgement of the holy scriptures which scriptures in the chapter going before he hath satisfied But how he hath satisfied them let the indifferent readers iudge And seeing the Papistes offer to stād to their iudgement in all things and wee refuse them not as witnesses vnto the truth in most things he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors His second reason is for that I do answere all mine own doctors for him if it be wel considered what is your consideration In that I confesse them to haue helde with you the very same points for which wee must bee condemned no remedie as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes What are those I pray you Bristowe answereth For why doeth he saye that we are against the honor of God against the offices of Christ but because wee holde inuocation of saints and worshipping of their reliques yes sir for other more grosse idolatrie and defacing of the kingdome priesthod and propheticall office of Christe and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossely then any of the doctors did Againe why doth he say that we are against the authoritie of Gods worde but because we hold with traditions as the doctors did I aunswere the doctors held with no traditions that were proued to be against the written worde of God they made not the decrees of Councels and Popes of equall autoritie with the worde of God as you do But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my wordes in which I say expressely I confesse with M. Allen that the old writers not only knewe but also haue expressed the value of our redemption by Christ in such wordes as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stande with them And yet on the other side saith Bristowe see what followeth immediatly Against the value of which redemption if they haue vttered any thing by the worde of satisfaction or any thing else we may lawfully reiect their authoritie not onely though they be doctors of the church but also if they were angels from heauen But what I pray you concludeth Bristowe of these two sayings His wordes followe immediatly So that nowe we no more neede to defende against him that wee are not contrarie to the doctors then that the doctors are not contrary to them selues As though it were impossible for men to be contrarie to themselues And yet I say no more of them then of the angels that they are contrary to the trueth in this point but that if they were wee might reiect them as lawfully as the angels if they brought another gospell Last of all he sayth Wee neede not defend that we are contrarie to our selues in the same For in what wordes the doctors speake thereof the same do wee Neither is the antecedent true nor if it were doth the argument followe For you will not saye as the olde writers doe that through the redemption of Christ a man is iustified before God by faith onely without respect of his workes or merites And where you vse the doctors wordes you either vse them in a contrary sense or else elude them with additions distinctions neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the olde doctors but inuented out of your owne
hereticall braines After which manner it is easie to defeÌ„d that they say nothing against any heresie which they doe not condemne by name although they plainly aduouche the trueth against such errour 3 I ioygne with him neuerthelesse particularly Although they ascribe not infallibilitie to a fewe but onely to the vniforme consent of the doctours yet he is content to ioyne vppon this issue that the protestants haue not against them for any one article at all so much as any one doctour at all Howe he auoydeth mine euidence you shall see in that which followeth The second parte Of his doctors particularly First whether they expound any scripture against vs. As touching antichrist I sayd Pur. 249. The seat of antichrist was apointed to be set vp in the Latin church according to the reuelation of Saint Iohn and the exposition of Ireneus who iudged that Lateinos was that number of the beasts name spokeÌ„ of Apoc. 13. To this Bristoâ—â— answereth here are two ragged conclusioÌ„s The first antichrist was appointed to be set vp in the Latin church ergo the Pope of Rome is antichrist No sir I made no such argument but of the authoritie of Irenaeus I proued that the seat of antichrist was appointed to be set vp in the Latine church and therfore superstition was somewhat forwarder then in the Greeke church The other conclusion sayeth Bristowe is this Irenaeus iudged that Lateinos should be the name of antichrist as Iesus was and is the name of Christ ergo he iudged that antichrist was apointed to be set vp in the Latin church I answere the antecedent is yours Master Bristowe and not mine For I sayd not that Irenaeus iudged that Lateinus should be the name of antichrist as Iesus is the name of Christ as though antichrist should be a singular man For Irenaeus sayeth it in respect of his kingdome which should be in the Latine part of the world Vâ—lde verisimile est quoniam verissimum regnum hoc habâ—â— vocabulum It is verie like because the moste true kingdome hath that name which was the kingdome of the Romanes Therefore wee must seeke in the Romane kingdome for antichist in which kingdome haue reigned hitherto Emperours and Popes Emperours haue beene heathenish Christened the heathenish it could not be because antichrist must sit in the Church and they were altogether without Of the Emperours some were Catholike and some hereticall The Catholike no man will charge the hereticall Emperors were no false Prophets as antichrist must be a false teacher that with lying signes and wonders shall deceiue the world wherefore it remaineth that of all that haue hitherto reigned in the Latine Empire the Pope must bee that principall antichrist For Caluine and Luther whome Bristowe fondly nameth to be in the Latine Churche neuer bare rule in the Latine kingdome Bristowes last refuge is that Irenaeus did not so iudge Hee onely sayeth it is very like to be so I aske no more but his iudgement of the likelyhod For I knowe hee reciteth other names which haue in them the same number as Euan Teitan and in the ende will pronounce certeinly of none holding that it is better to expect the fulfilling of the Prophecy then to pronounce rashly of any But seeing antichrist is alreadie reuealed and all the prophecy of his apostasie and seduction accomplished wee doubt not to ioyne to that auncient likelyhod of Irenaeus the later likelyhodes of the same name agreeing in number with Lateinos in Greeke Romiith in Hebrewe not neglecting Ecclesia Italica The consent of all which names signifying the region the citie the kingdom beare so harde vpon the Pope the popish church of Rome that Bristowe though he laye both his shoulders to it shall neuer be able to remoue it Secondly I sayde of Hierom Pur. 373. Hee was not such a slaue to the church of Rome that whatsoeuer pleased the bishops of that see he was readie to accept For then he would not haue beene so bold to call Rome the purple whore of Babylon Praef. ad Paul in lib. Didym Bristow replyeth as though when he calleth Rome so or when Augustine calleth it the Westerne Babylon they meane the church of Rome I sayed not they meane the church of Rome as it was in their time but that antichrist shoulde sit at Rome whome the scripture sayeth must sit in the temple or Church of God 2. Thes. 2. Neither doeth Augustine meane it of the empire but of antichrist which should arise in the Romane empire Neither doeth Hierom meane of the Paganisme of Rome that remained in his time which in the place by Brist cited ad Marcell Ep. 16. he testifieth to haue ben trovnder feete but of the purple whore sitting aloft vpon the rose coulered beast of the wine of whose fornication all nations were made drunken of the blasphemie written in her forehead of the seuen hilles c. although in his tyme he confesse there was the churche of God the tryumphe of the Apostles and Martyrs c. gentilitate calcata Gentilitie being troaden vnder feete the Christian name dayly lifting it selfe aloft But that Hierom in doubtes did seeke for resolution of Damasus bishop of Rome and that all other must likewise doe Bristowe citeth his Epistle ad Damasum To 〈…〉 2. in which he consulteth with Damasus whether hee should vse the name of Hippostasis and saith further that whosoeuer gathereth not with Damasus doth scatter that is to saye whoso is not Christes is antichrists I aunswere all this was well so long as Damasus was a Catholike bishop but that Saint Hierome was not readie to accept whatsoeuer it pleased the bishop of Rome it is manifest by that he affirmeth Liberius to haue subscribed to the Arrians in Catal. script which he would neuer haue done if he had thought it impossible for the bishop of Rome to erre or necessarie for him to followe the bishop of Romes doctrine in all things The place cited ad Damasum with answere to it is in my confutation of Saunders Rocke Cap. 15. And therefore the saying of Leo Epist. 89. That Christ tooke Peter into the participation of the vndiuided vnitie proueth not that it is all one to be Peters and to be Christes when Peter erreth from Christe and much lesse that it is all one as Bristowe sayeth to be in vnitie with Peter and his successours meaning the Popes and to be in vnitie with Christ from whome not onely all Popes in matter now of controuersie doe But diuerse of the Bishops Popes of Rome haue beene deuided into horrible and confessed errours and heresies of both partes as Gentilisme Arrianisme Euâ—ichianisme Menothelitisme Sadduceisme Againe I saide Pur. 320. Which of your prelates wil follow Ambrose in his coÌ„mentarie vpoÌ„ the Apocalipse where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the citie of Rome whose wordes Bristow wil recite for me This whore doth betoken in some places Rome in special
their subtile craftie rash craze the concord of the bishops which cleueth together But there to plead their cause wher both they may haue accusers witnesses of their crime except to a fewe desperate men castawayes the authoritie of the bishops placed in Africa seemeth to be lesse which haue alreadie iudged of them by the weight of their iudgement condemned their conscience bounde with the snares of many trespasses Their cause already hath beene heard the sentence is alreadie pronounced of them neither is it congruent to the censure of priests to be reprehended by Leuits of mouable inconstant minde c. You see that Cyprian meant nothing lesse than to giue Cornelius bishop of Rome authoritie to reuerse the sentence of the bishops of Africa whose authoritie he iudged to be nothing lesse then the bishops of Rome or other places Moreouer Bristow saith that Cyprian doth also note in S. Stephan some little negligence but much more wilful obreption in those two lapsed bishops of Spaine Basilides Martialis who had concealed from him the trueth that in their supplication they should haue expressed which because they did not he saith well that their restitution by the Pope could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the bishopâ— of their owne prouince This which so plainly maketh for the Popes authoritit saveth Bristowe you are so blinde to bring against it Not so blinde but I can see that you acknowledge 〈…〉 e Pope iâ—â—udgement of bynding and loosing may 〈…〉 re But what I pray you maketh this for the Pope you 〈…〉 eane perhaps that Cyprian doeth graunt by impliâ—ation if the foresaide errour had not deceiued Stephaâ—â—s he had full authoritie to haue restored those two 〈◊〉 apsed bishops But Cyprian sayeth not so you hearde â—efore what his iudgement was of them that were condemned in one Prouince that their sentence could not â—e reuersed in another but if they woulde returne to the Church they should there be receiued vppon their â—epentance where they were first condemned and in this 4. Epistle he sayeth Quare etsi c. wherefore although some of our fellowe bishops there haue been moste welbeloued brethren which thinke the diuine discipline is to be neglected and doe rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis this thing ought not to trouble our faith You see that he reproueth Stephanus and such as tooke his parte for neglect of diuine discipline in communicating with those heretikes which were lawfully condemned in their owne prouince and therefore coulde not by any other bee restored As concerning the Councels of Africa Mileuis sayeth Bristowe the question between them and those other fiue Popes was not about the matters of the vniuersall church as for example matters of faith No was is not the Popes authoritie of you counted a matter of faith and of the vniuersall church although they agreed in all other matters But Bristow shameth not to say it was not about the Popes authoritie in receiuing of bishops appeales but what order the Nicene Councel had taken therein As though that counterfeit Canon was not alledged to iustifie the Popes authoritie in receiuing such appeales But there are examples you saye of appeales and namely of the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Constantinople but of which Patriarks to whom you shewe not yea S. Augustine him selfe you say vseth it as a plea That Cecilianus was readie to pleade his cause before other churches out of Africa Ep. 162. This prooueth not that Cecilianus although trusting in the innoceÌ„cy of his cause refused no indifferent iudges yet that he appealed to the Church of Rome and least of all to the singular iudgment of the Bishop of Rome but to all other churches And the appeales that were made in his cause were made to the Emperour and from the Bishop of Rome being once delegate of the Emperour to heare his cause with other Bishops vnto him the seconde time who gaue aliud uidicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum c. an other iudgement of A relate of other Bishops as it is plaine in the same Epistle But such appeales were lawfull saith Bristow by the councell Sardicense cap. 7. in the same Carthage councell cap. 3. whose authoritie none of those Africane Bishops did denie for the same Bishops were of it that were of the Nicene and Sainct Augustine chap. 7. did expresly admitte in the Canon of the inferiori appealing from their ownâ— Bishops In deede in the 3. chap. of the 6. Councell of Carthage that forged Canon of Bishops appeales was aledged which is nowe read for the 7. Canon of the Sardicense councell but it was alledged as a canon of the Nicene Councell and if it had beene a true canon of Sardica Councell why did not those Bishops alledge it as a Canon of Sardica as well as the other Canon of the inferiors appealing from their owne Bishop vnto the Bishops next adioyning seeing the Bishops of Africa and S. Augustine himselfe were so ready to yeelde to the authoritie of the Councell of Sardica Therefore it appeareth that the Canon of bishops appeales to Rome being first forged as a Canon of the Nicene Councell when it could not find any setling there was afterwarde foysted in the Sardicen Councell Thirdly saith Bristow these appeales were lawfull by the Nicene Councell also wherevppon you say verie insolently trusting ouermuch your lying LutheraÌ„ frinds the Magdeburgiens that S. Augustine his fellowes tooke those Popes with plaine forgery of the Canons of Nice and fetched them ouer the coles meetely wel for it Bristow will still defend that forged Canon for other there is none in the Nicen councell that alloweth such appeales As for the Magdeburgiens I neuer read theÌ„ but the report of the councels gathered by Peter Crab I haue read 〈◊〉 dosen yeares before I wrote against Allen. And in the end of the African Councel I read this Epistle of the councell to Celestinus byshop of the citie of Rome Domino dilectissimo honorabili fratri Celestino c. To our most welbeloued lord honorable brother Celestinus We Aurelius Palatinus Antonius Tutus Seruus dei Terentius Fortunatus Martinus Ianuarius Optatus Celticius Donatus Theasius Vincentius Fortunatianus and the rest which were present in the vniuersal AfricaÌ„ councel of Carthage We wold haue wished if as thy holynes hath insinuated by letters sent by our fellow elder Leo that you reioyced of the comming of Appiarius so we also might send with gladnes these writings of his purgation Verily both our and your chearfulnes should be now more certaine neither might seeme too much hasted and ouer-speedy which as yet had gon before aswell of one to bee heard as of one that is alredy heard Surely when our ho ly brother and fellow bishop Faustinus came vnto vs we gathered a Councell and beleeued that he was therfore sent with him that as by his helpe he had beene before restored to the Eldership so
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
the canonical scriptures as a Councell prouinciall Bristowe sayth it was by my confession confirmed in the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople in Trullo therfore it hath the authoritie of the whole true church But I tooke no exception to the generalitie therof But let it be as generall as you will both that and the Councel in Trullo erred by your owne iudgement seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authoritie of the Romane prelate euen by name as Gratian witnesseth Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretike Art 16. 17. Beside this I alledge that this Councel of Carthage 3. among Canonicall Scriptures nameth fiue bookes of Salomon whereas the church alloweth but three Bristowe answereth out of Augustine which hee saith was one of the Councell that the booke of wisedome and Ecclesiasticus of a certeine similitude were called Salomons bookes whereas they were written by Iesus the sonn of Syrach although the former he retract in rest li. 2. Ca. 4. I aske no better to proue the errour of the Councell but that they named fiue of Salomon for three Secondly it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Councell that although they called these books canonical yet they meant them not to be of equall authoritie with the rest of the scriptures Aug. cōtra Gaudent lib. 2. Ca. 23. And this scripture of the Machabees the Iewes count not as the Lawe the Prophets the Psalmes to whome our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses saying it behoueth that all things should be fulfilled that are writtē of me in the law in that Prophets in the Psalms But it is receiued of the church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read heard Bristowe saith I ascribe vnto S. Augustine that which he reporteth of the Iewes when I say that he alloweth them not in full authoritie with the law the Prophets the Psalmes fraudulently omitting that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentēce that our Sauiour Christ appealeth to these onely witnesses namely the law the Prophets the Psalmes so the Iewes by ancient tradition diuide all the canonical bookes into these three orders Secondly where I note that Augustine alloweth not these bookes wtout condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Brist saith that all Catholikes S. Peter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole scriptures as S. Augustine doth in the Donatistes which defended the murthering of thēselues by example of Rasis out of the Machabees Wherunto I reply that although sobrietie be required in al readers of the holy scripture other writings also yet it is not required as a condition making the scriptures to be profitably receiued of the church if they be soberly read for howsoeuer the canonicall scriptures be read by whomsoeuer although he be mad drunk that readeth or heareth them yet are they not only profitably but also necessarily receiued of the church but this scripture of the Machabes saith Augustin it is receiued not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard Who seeth not a gret difference between this scripture receiued vnder condition the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him selfe But Augustine saith Brist the Councel call these canonical de doct Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine nameth al that by any church are counted canonical confessing in a maner as Bristow granteth that they were not all generally receiued of the whole church therfore instructeth the studēt of diuinitie to prefer some before others The reasons that I brought to proue this booke not to be canonical are these first because the author cōmendeth Rasis for killing himself which is contrary to Gods commaundment Bristow answereth out of Augustine that the scripture hath only told it not cōmended it But the place is manifest 2. Mach. 14. that the author of the booke doth not only report his murthering of him self but also doth highly cōmend his manfulnes therin willing saith he rather to dye valiantly than to giue him selfe into the hands of wicked men to suffer reproch vnworthie for his noble stock so forth to the ende of the Chapter Secondly I said that writer abridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other mens writings Bristowe sayth the booke of Kings in many places abridgeth stories telling where they be written in other bookes that are not canonicall To this I answere the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirite of man but for ciuile affaires sendeth the reader to other writers seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them Furthermore he sayeth S. Marke is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthewe I aunswere not so cōmonly as falsly for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Mathewe and something he vtterly omitteth which is not the office of a true abridger And albeit that he did it were no answere to mine obiection that because the spirite of God telleth shortly that which he himself had told at large as in the Actes the sermons of the Apostles he is an abridger of Chronicles written by prophane men The citing of the saying of Poets Act. 17. Tit. 1. proueth not that the holy ghost intending to write an historie of the church vseth the labour of the prophane man Iason the Cyrenian I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their owne receiued witnesses another thing to bring fiue bookes of an historie into one Thirdly I sayd the author of that booke confesseth that he toke that matter in hand that men might haue pleasure in it which could not away with the long tedious stories of Iason But the spirit of God serueth not such vaine delightes of men Brist asketh if profitable breuitie be a vaine delight but I speake not of the breuitie but the cause why he affected breuitie namely that men might haue pleasure in his worke Fourthly I said the author sheweth what labor sweat it was to him to make this abridgement ambitiously cōmendeth his trauell sheweth the difference between a storie at large an abridgement all which things sauour nothing of Gods spirit Also he confesseth his infirmitie and desireth pardon if he haue spoken slenderly and barely whereby hee testifieth sufficiently that he was no scribe of the holy ghost Bristow saith that he ambitiously commendeth his trauel is but my blasphemy all the rest standeth well ynough with the assistance of the holy ghost Concerning his ambitious cōmendation of his trauel where to serueth his great cōplaint of the great labour sweat watching the it cost him the wise similitude that he taketh of him that maketh a feast seeketh other mens commoditie hath no smal sauor so we also for many mens sake saith he are very well content to vndertake this great labour A great labour I promise you
requireth not the burthen of shirts of haire nor to be shutte vp in the streightes of a little cell neither doth he commaunde vs to sitte in obscure and darke caues This onely is that which is required of vs that we alwayes remember our sinnes He requireth onely compunction of the heart therefore he requireth no workes of satisfaction neither those nor any other Bristow will see nothing but the streight mourning of Monkes The worde onely is so litle for his purpose that he cannot see it And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can Chrysostome saith it is besides Gods commandement To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter I read of his teares I reade not of his satisfaction Bristowe replyeth that he saith immediatly before I finde not what he said I finde that he wept Wherevpon he will gather both confession and satisfaction necessarie I would faine see that collection in a syllogisme Surely if they were both necessarie S. Peter by iudgement of Ambrose lacked two necessarie pointes of repentance which Iudas had and yet obteyned not forgiuenesse But teares saith he are a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction And yet where Ambrose sayeth they obteine pardon Bristowe saith they are not sufficient so that Peter weeping hauing beside his inward contrition a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction had not that which wold serue But Br. leauing this place as obscure referreth vs to a plain place Ad vir Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime is necessary a passing great satisfactioÌ„ wherto I answered before that an heinous offeÌ„ce must be earnestly bewailed if the repentaÌ„ce be not couÌ„terfet Brist saith He doubted not of her repentance to be vnfeined What theÌ„ He exhorteth her to continue her repentance not for satisfaction to God whose iustice caÌ„not be saâ—isfied by mans worke but by her earnest sorrowe to satisfie the Church which was offended by her whoredome The fourth thing is pardons whereof Bristowe speaketh as he doth commonly with wonderfull confusion I saide the olde satisfaction was in respect of the offence vnto the Church and not to satisfie the iustice of God which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enioyned by the Church vpon good consideration might be and often was released by the Church as appeareth by many places of Cyprian which Bristowe citeth and many other but not by the Bishop only and this release or remission was called indulgence or pardon which is no more like to Popish pardons then the creaking of a goose is like the songe of a swanne But as for pardoning of sinne they affirmed that it was proper to God as Ambrose to the virgine Sticke to penance euen to the end of thy life and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day for he deceiueth thee that so promiseth the. For thou that hast in speciall sinned against the Lorde it is meete that of him only thou looke for remedy in the day of iudgement Bristowe saith He did binde her to penance all her life bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand as he bounde the Emperour Theodosius indefinitely and loosed him after eight moneths penance with a pardon Who seeth not quoth Bristow that all this maketh plainly for pardons But Ambrose telleth her not that he would not pardon her but that no man can pardon the offence committed against God and that if the Pope himselfe should promise to pardon her he should but deceiue her And yet the Church might pardon the offence and slander where with they were iustly offended by her whoredome and restore her to the Communion as I doubt not but they did although she should continue her repentance al the daies of her life when Ambrose did binde and loose the Emperor he did only vse the discipline of the Church to bring him to repentance that God might forgiue his sinnes not that he might make satisfaction for the slaughter of 7000. men of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. moneths penance but after such time seeing him to be sorrowfull in deede receiued him againe into the communion The place of Cyprian In Sermon de Lapsis is very cleare to shewe that God and not man forgiueth the sinnes Let no man deceiue himselfe let no man beguile himselfe only our Lord can giue mercy only he can graunt pardon to sinnes as beeing committed against him who hath borne our sinnes who hath suffered sorrow for vs whom God hath deliuered for our sinnes Man cannot be greater then God neither can the seruant by his indulgence remitt or â—orgiue that which by so greate offence is committed against the Lorde least this offence also be added to him that is fallen if he knowe not that it is foreshewed Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man Our Lorde must be entreated our Lorde must be pacified with our satisfaction which saith he doth denie that man that denieth him Against this so plaine a place Bristowe cauelleth that he speaketh to impenitents that trusted also in laie mens pardons which is false for they were not altogether impenitent but not sufficiently repentant neither did they trust in laie mens pardons but without dewe repentance tried made hast to be reconciled by entreaty of the Martyrs yet with the hurtfull facility of the priests whereof Cyprian complaineth Sic oportet Dei Sacerdotem So it behoueth the priest of God not to deceiue with the deceiuable yeâ—lding but to prouide with wholesome remedies As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristowe would haue to be noted were not pardons of sinnes but release of time of separation enioined by the Church to shewe repentance for their sinnes as I declared before Which is euen as auncient as the Gospell whereas popish pardons Apoena culpa are of a much newer stampe and contrary to the auncient custome in the giuers for they were geuen by the whole Church in the persons for they were giuen to men a liue only in the time for they were giuen but of a short time of penance enioyned in this life and not of so many thousand yeares c. in the thing released for they were neither pardons of punishment nor of sinne dewe to Gods iustice but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church when the Church was otherwise satisfied 7 Of Purgatorie of the Canonicall memento of oblations of sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church Bristowe chargeth me to vse the arguments from mens authoritie negatiuely which I my selfe confesse to be naught but he mistaketh the matter I saide the order of prayers and administration of the holie mysteries described by Iustinus and Tertullian doe sufficiently declare what was the vsage of the Christians in those purer times in which no mention beeing made of oblations and sacrifice for the deade it is certaine there was none vsed not onely because there is no mention but because those two
euerlasting rest of infantes that were not baptized But what saith Bristowe to my reply which is this The same reason serueth as well against the Popish Purgatorie because we finde it not in the holie Scriptures Bristowe asketh whether Saint Augustine doth so reason against it As though that were materiall when the reason will binde one man as wel as another and one matter as wel as another As for his opinion of prayer for the dead as I haue often saide proueth not a thirde place as for the two places De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. cap. 13. 24. the one manifestly corrupted the other iustly suspected I haue spoken to them both alreadie Other Doctors about prayer for the dead I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur That no man can be absolued of the Pope after his death and wherefore then serue the Popes Pardons Bristowe answereth that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion and not for excommunicate persons Verie well yet are you not escaped For where is the Popes commission for pardoning Quodeunque c Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shal be loosed in heauen c. if this be your commission as well for giuing pardoÌ„s as for absoluing excommunicate persons this commission cannot be exercised but vpon the liuing We read saith Gelâ—sius that Christe did raise the dead we reade not that he did absolue them that died in errour If I had pleasure to enterlarde the Doctors sayinges as you haue I should adde that we reade not that Christ gaue pardon to any in Purgatorie And because he alone had power onely this to doe he committed it to Peter the Apostle principally Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shabe loosed also in heauen c. He saith vpon earth for he neuer saide that he was to be absolued which died in his binding Likewise that this authoritie giuen by this texte be it more or lesse is to be exercised onely vpon men liuing on the earth you may read C. 24 q. 2. Quod autem And that no man can be excommunicated or absolued after his death it is shewed by the wordes of the Gospell in which it is said whatsoeuer you shal binde c. he saith vpon the earth not vnder the earth Where I cited out of Cyprian Cont. Demetr Pur. 140. when men are departed from hence there is no place of repentance no effect of satisfaction Here life is either lost or saued Here prouision is made for euerlasting life by the worshipping of the fruite of faith Bristowe chargeth me with clipping because I left out the last periode which is neither to nor fro my purpose Likewise where I said he exhorteth Demetrianus himselfe to repentance which had bene a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians he chargeth me with changing for I should haue said which presently was I changed no worde of Cyprian in saying he had beene and a reasonable man would haue vnderstoode me that he presently was such a one when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance But what is the answere This which is expresly written of Infidells in hell and of baptisme I pretend to be written of the faithfull in Purgatory and of penance after baptisme I answere Cyprian speaketh generally of all men not of Infidels only of al men in this world and not of Infidels in hell Nec quisquam c. Neither let any man be staide either by sinnes or by yeares that he should not come to obteine saluation To him that remaineth still in this worlde no repentance is to late The way is open vnto pardon and to them that seeke and vnderstand the trueth the accesse is easie Finally after he had saide that passage is from death to life the place by me cited he addeth Hanc graiiam This grace Christ bestoweth this gift of his mercie he giueth by subduing death with the trophee of his crosse redeeming the beleeuer with the price of his bloud reconciling man to God his father quickening a mortall man by heauenly regeneration Him if it may be let vs all followe let vs be esteemed by his sacrament and signe he openeth vnto vs the way of life he restoreth vs to Paradise he bringeth vs to the kingdome heauen with him we shall alwayes liue c. These wordes declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one meane of saluation as well for the Gentile to be baptised as for the penitent Christian by the onely mercie of God in Christe obteined in this life without any satisfaction of paine for euer after this life and therefore he saith moreouer That beeing made the sonnes of God by Christ restored by his bloud we shall alwayes reioyce with him We Christians shall be together with Christ glorious blessed of God our father reioycing of perpetuall pleasure alwayes in the sight of God and alwayes giuing thankes to God For he can not be but alwayes ioyfull and glad which when he was guilrie of death is made sure of immortality Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus if he did repent but euen immediately before his death and were baptised that he should enioye the same state of felicitie with all faithfull Christians in perpetuall ioy after death with Christ. In like maner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this worlde while confession may be receiued and satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is acceptable to God which he speaketh generally as if he had saide no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest auaileth to them that are departed To the place of Chrysostome whiche I cited against himselfe Pur. 251. Bristowe after he hath remoued the question from the cause to the person answereth that no friend no iust man shall helpe him that dieth in mortal sinne either committing euil or doing no good I say no more but as I saide before Let it be compared with Chrysostomes other saying the Homilie next before 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter Pur. 242. If thou yet chance c. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead I cited in Psalm 4. Bene c. The Prophet did well to adde on earth for if he be not cleansed here he can not be cleansed there I should haue saide cleane saith Bristowe for though he be not cleane from veniall sinnes he may be cleansed there as also from the temporall debt of his remitted mortall sinnes But he forgetteth the worde of the Psalme out of which Ambrose maketh his note Vt emundet cum in terra that he may cleanse him on earth why was it well added on earth if he might be cleansed after this life There is no cleansing but on earth Where Ambrose was alledged by Allen Pur. 104. to proue that euerie man immediately after his death doth feele that he must looke for in the day of iudgement I saide Purgatorie 105. I maruell wherefore it is brought in if it bee not to
anie priest which had purposed continencie to marrie To that I saide of manie of the Cathedrall Churches in England builded for preachers and their wiues to dwell in Bristowe saith I haue wonne a whetstone as bigge as a mountaine but against the authoritie of the histories Ranulph Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens and other which I cited Bristow bringeth nothing but railing in filthie termes meete for the colledge of Cardinals life not for the holie estate of matrimonie Where I shewe the differing forme of the chauncels altars of the auncient Churches with crosse yles from the latter Popish erections Bristowe maketh me a souden proctor of theirs as though a chauncel and altar a crosse barre might not be named but by a Papist Yea he maketh me contrarie to my selfe for saying that Popish chauncels which are at the East end of Churches are but late additions and sanctifieth that we can abide no chauncels no crosse yles no length to the East c. of which things we make small account either to haue theÌ„ or to be without them But it is more materiall that he saith CoÌ„stantinus had tabernaculum crucis a tabernacle or moucable Church of the crosse wheras we can abide no crosse or roode in our Churches Euseb. in vit Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56 Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places shewe that in his warres he vsed to haue a tent or tabernacle as a Church for praier and ministration of the sacraments the first place onely calleth it tabernaculum crucis which might be of the forme but of any crosse that was in it there is no mention and much lesse of a rood which is a crosse with an image on it As for the crosse which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola saith was kept in the Church of Ierusalem worshipped by the Bishop and the people if it were true yet it proueth not creeping to the crosse on Good Friday as Bristow saith for there might be worshipping without creeping or Popish worshipping either Againe worshipping of that same crosse that Christ died on proueth not creeping to any idol of it Finally where he would proue out of Paulinus and Beda the multitude of altars in one Churche he laboureth in vaine Eusebius whome I cited is cleare both of the vnitie of the altar in his time and of the manner of standing which was not after the popish manner Of like wisedome it is that he will not allowe me to talke of chalices of wood and glasse because I say their vestiments be as good stuffe as their chalices which the olde Church knewe not Thereof he chargeth me not 〈◊〉 haue-read in Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra c. Holie cope wouen with golden threads which Constaâ—tinus gaue to the Bishop of Ierusalem that he might weare it when he did baptise Yes I haue read it but I spake of an elder Church then Constantines time in which such pompe was not vsed And yet that robe is lewdly translated of Bristowe a cope Although neither the Papists in baptisme haue alwaies or ordinarily worne a cope The rest that he citeth out of antiquitie for gorgeous attire and golden chalices partly is false and partly superfluous For Ornatus is by him translated into ornaments Valens commended Saint Basil Quòd tanto ornatu támque decenter c that with so great comelinesse and so decently he exercised his priestlie office Againe Sozomen lib. 8. cap. 21. sheweth that Chrysostomes priestes taken by force in ornatu vt erant in their attire as they were which was but a white garment as appeareth by diuers places of Chrysostome in Matth. Hom. 85. c. Likewise he asketh whether there were such neede for redeeming captiues building of Churches or that requies defunctorum might be at the buriall of the deade that chalices were broken and solde seeing Ambrose alloweth but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices As though Ambrose spake of buying of Trentals of Masses with the price of the chalices where he saith Off. lib. 2. cap. 28. Nemo potest dolere quia in sepulturis Christianorâ—â—n requies defunctorum est No man can be griened because in the buriall of Christians the rest of the deade is Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of buriall which is the third cause Nemo potest indignari c. No man can be angrie because the spaces are enlarged for burying of the reliquijs fidelâ—um the bodies of the faithfull Yet he asketh if I be not ashamed to cite such places of antiquitie seel hate chalices because they be chalices and because they be consecrated Whereas I saide nothing against the necessarie vse of cuppes in the Communion but of the superstitious pompe of the Papistes in their golden chalices and idolatrous manner of consecrating them while they suffer the poore to sterue for lacke of necessarie sustenâ—nce but once againe most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say that the sacred chalice is called there a vessell of our Lordes bloud and golde in which our Lordes bloud is powred where he speaketh of breaking the cuppes before they be solde least they should offensiuely be abused to wicked purposes But there saith he is not any such worde of them and in the middest of the chapter where these wordes are they are not spoken of the materiall cuppe but of the godlie vse of them when they are solde to redeeme captiues aunswering the obiection of such thinges that be once dedicated to Gods seruice Ille verus est thesaurus Domini c. That is a true treasure of the Lorde which worketh that which his bloud wrought Then I acknowledge a vessell of the Lordes bloud when I see redemption in both that the cup may redeeme from the enimie them whome the bloud hath redeemed from finne And againe Agnosco infusum auro c. I acknowledge the bloud of Christe powred into the golde not onely to haue made it redde but also to haue imprinted in it the vertue of diuine operation by the gift of redemption Such golde the holie Martyr Laurence reserued to the Lord c. But seeking to giue the Papistes a blowe Bristowe saith I care not though the stroke light vpon the Primitiue Church which had vessels of gold not onely in these princely buildings erected by Constantine c but also in the crypts or caues of the earth in time of persecutioÌ„ How Ambroâ—e and Acacius vsed thought these goldeÌ„ vesselâ— best bestowed I haue shewed But in the persecution time howe proueth Bristowe they had such plentie of golde and siluer Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence and râ—quiring the treasures of the Church as the cups of golâ—e and siluer in which they did sacrifice and set their waxe candles But what answere did Laurence the Deacon returne what chalices or candlestickes did he render but the poore that were relieued by the aimes of the Church
and sale of the golden vessels if they had any as witnesseth S. Ambrose in the place before cited Where I affirme the auncient Churches were without images because the tempse of God and images can not agree c. Bristowe saith I may roll in such rhetorike before fooles that receiue our absurde principles to wit That the idols of the Pagans were images of the Christians But thinketh Bristowe that any of our auditors is so foolish to beleeue so absurde a principle as he is malitious in feigning vs to affirme such an impossible paradoxe I am sure it neuer entred into the opinion of any preacher to imagine that the idols of the Pagans were the images of Christians But this we say that Popish images although they be not the same that were the images of the Heathen yet they are as abhominable idols as theirs the worshipping of them as much to be abhorred of all true Christians as the worshipping of the images of the Gentiles and for proofe of that neither you nor Sander shall euer finde me non plus as you say you make me by denying that absurd principle which is of your owne fantasticall imagination and not of our ignorant and vnlearned affirmation as you feigne it As touching our liuings we are nothing discouraged by the storie of Ambrose de Basilicis tradendis but that we may enioie them with a better conscience then you compare vs with the Arrians and our most Christian Prince to the Arrian Empresse In the 22. Demaund of seruice of the Church howe vainly he affirmeth the seruice of the primitiue Church to be the same that the Popish Church now hath because two errors of praier for the dead and to Saintes were in the olde Church of three or foure hundreth yeares after Christ I will not tarie to declare But where I note out of S. Augustine affirming that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs seeing praier is a sacrifice that therefore it ought to be offered only to God and that Martyrs were not called vpon in the time of the sacrifice but onely named for remembrance Bristowe to proue that they were called vpon contrarie to the expresse wordes of Augustine citeth Augustine Tract in Ioan. 84. speaking of the blessed Martyrs Non sic eos commemoramus c. We doe not so rehearse them as other that rest in peace that we also pray for them but rather that they may pray for vs that we may cleaue to their steppes These words proue not that they did in publike seruice call vpon the Martyrs with solemne praiers but onely interpret what Augustine supposed the meaning of the publike liturgie to be in that place where the Martyrs were named among other that are in rest for whome they did pray as appeareth more plainely by the other place which Bristowe quoteth De verb. Apost 17. Perfectio tamen c Yet there is some kinde of perfection in this life vnto which the holie Martyrs are come Therfore the Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faithfull doe knowe when the Martyrs are rehearsed in that place at the altar of God where praier is not made for them but for the rest of the departed that are rehearsed praier is made For it is an iniurie to pray for a Martyr by whose praiers we ought to be commended Note also in the former sentence that they praied for them that did rest in peace therefore they praied not for deliuerance out of purgatorie where they are saide to be in paine without rest The other places which he noteth of priuate persons praying to Saints proueth not that such praier was vsed in the publike seruice of the Church which although perhaps it were not syncere in all points yet was it much elder than the error of inuocation of Saintes Where I note that no sacrifice was to be offered vnto Martyrs Bristowe saith it is to be vnderstoode of externall sacrifice as though the Christians had any but eucharisticall or of prosperities But admitting his distinction of externall and internall sacrifice howe are the Gentiles answered by Saint Augustine that we worship not Saintes as Gods when we offer spirituall sacrifice to them which is most proper to God which is a spirit and challengeth the spirituall worship vnto him selfe You might as well graunt them externall temples as spirituall sacrifice and much rather For if they must haue spirituall and internall sacrifice they must haue a spirituall and internal temple wherein and vpon which it must be offered which is all one as if you will dispossesse the holy Ghost of his temple and set vp an other altar in mans heart to offer vp sacrifice vnto Martyrs therevpon But Bristowe as it were giuing ouer his former distinction saith praier to Saintes is no more a sacrifice to Saintes then those dishes of meate which of some Christians were superstitiously brought into the Churches as Augustine sheweth to be sanctified by the merites of the the Martyrs de ciuit lib. 8. cap 27. But the Prophet saith A troubled spirite which sendeth foorth praiers is a sacrifice vnto God Psal. 51. and therefore ought not to be offered to creatures and Psal. 140. he desireth that his praier may be as incense the euening sacrifice c. Concerning ceremonies he chargeth me to refuse al by mine argument of authoritie of Gods worde negatiuely and yet in other wordes to allowe some Who so will conferre the places shall easily see his witlesse and senselesse cauelling I refuse all superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies but the word of God alloweth such as are necessarie for order and decencie not hindering but furthering edification The order of seruice and ministration which Iustinus describeth the Church to haue vsed containeth a summe of all that we vse in our liturgie Bristowe saith it is the summe of the Masse also and there is water mingled with wine plaine against the Communion booke As for the mingling of water with wine howe proueth he that it is named as a necessarie ceremonie vsed in that time and not rather to declare how soberly the Christians vsed wine in those meetinges which were so malitiously slaundered But if it were a ceremonie what hath it contrarie to the communion booke which although it require no more then Christ vsed yet it forbiddeth not the addition of water if any necessarie occasion doe require it But I would faine see the masse disciphered out of that description of Iustine which Bristowe saith is the verie summe of the masse Vnlesse Fulke be so foolish to thinke saith he that the Bishoppes sermon the receiuing of all present the carying of it to them that be absent the rich mens offering may not to be omitted in any masse or for any cause What so euer may be vsed or omitted at any masse or for any cause I am not so wise that I knowe nor so carefull that I desyre to knowe But is Bristowe so madde to make any indued with reason to thinke that Iustinus
sacrifice is made celebrated with prayer as Hierom saith by the pâ—iestes prayers What are then the wordes of consecration And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also was Domus orationis the howse of prayer Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer So is Tertullian answered Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth they say the same Yea doe Bristowe Is the sacrifice you offer the bodie of Christ Yea doth the conscience of the offerer sanctifie the body of Christ Out vpon thee filthie blasphemous dogge if thou dare affirme it But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine As though that were the question Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion no lesse then we doe in the masse What newes is this doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse I thinke euen the same for none that communicate with Caluine doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood and no more doe you although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it In the 25. demaund of Monkes where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes Bristowe saith in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes and Idolatrie we haue spoyled the Church of God of great vtilitie But he saith further they were votaries and so they be not in colledges of studentes their vowes were not such that could make them other then students they vowed to serue God vprightly and his Church when they were called and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same forsake this holie purpose haue smale commendation among studentes I know in time superstition preuailed and that which first was free at last became coact and that which was of conueencie was thought of necessitie euen as true religion declined and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition In the 27. demaund of Councels where I proue that Councels may erre First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel Bristowe saith the prayer is not in respect for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members when in the prayer they expresly declare their feare lest ignorance hath driuen them into error which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life but of their error in decrees seeing the prayer is appropriate vnto the Councel And that the wordes going before after do manifestly declare Te in nostris principiis c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes that is that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error that to our perfect desires thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke And because our conscience accusing vs we doe fainte for feare lest either ignorance hath drawne vs into errror or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vs to decline from iustice therfore we desire thee we pray thee that if we haue drawne vnto vs any offence in the celebritie of this Councell thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it and to make it remissible Who would pray thus in the name of the whole Councell which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error That I alledge out of Augustine de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed the later by the former Bristowe vnderstandeth of Councells not confirmed by the Pope which may be reformed euen by the see Apostolike alone That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells where lacketh any necessarie confirmation This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops in possibility of erring in doctrine not excepting the Bishop of Rome then prouinciall last of all generall Councells onely the scripture cannot be amended as that which hath no error in it Where I saide the Councells are receiued because they decreed truly according to the worde of God and not the truth receiued because it was decreed in Councells Bristowe saith I might as well say the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures But I say the comparison is not like For truth is not so necessarilie bound vnto generall Councells as it is to the holy scriptures and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures It followeth not so of councells that what soeuer they haue decreed is truth although the Bishop of Rome haue confirmed them Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine which is an argument sufficient to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions The pope caÌ„not erre The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope cannot erre In the 28. demaunde of the See Apostolike where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing the Bishop of Rome were not heretikes Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure which is no matter in question saith he vsurped no authoritie nor was so charged but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent it would seeme likewise to many who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops that withstoode Victor confessed that he had authoritie ouer them or that he could not erre But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure seeing he followeth as he thought the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles Likewise Eusebius saith that Victor was sharply reproued of many and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce whom he gouerned Yea he saith expresly that Victor
with his censure was countermanded by many Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did countermaund him or gaue him contrarie commaundement to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie and loue of his neighbour Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things wherein they differed declared that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought but that the Bishop of Rome might erre The other example I brought was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome misliked by Dionysius Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 c. sharply reproued by Cyprian accusing him of presumption and contumacie Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus and almost all the Churches of Asia thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes should be baptized againe Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant nor so presumptuous that he would say he held the primacie and that other men should obey him as his inferiors Bristowe saith none of these denied the primacie of Peter I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie although Cyprian in the same place saith For neither Peter whom our lord chose first which argueth no primacie but of order vpō whom he builded his Church when Paule did afterward dissent from him about circumcision did boast him self or take vpon him any thing insolently or arrogantly that he should say he held the primacie and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie and certaintie of trueth against al men But Bristowe saith when there was no remedie but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them they did like Catholike men for all their Councels conforme their newe practise to the old custome and quoteth August de bapt cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. 25. where there is no such matter also he referreth vs to his fift Demaund where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement being admonished in a vision and that he had learned that not nowe onely but of olde time both in Aphrica and other places the trueth was receiued c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes if they dissented from the bishop of Rome there is no word The place of Hierome ad Euagrium which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church against a custome of the Church of Rome Bristowe saith doth not proue a Church a rule of trueth and Christianitie without the bishop and Church of Rome because Hierome saith as also there I cite Nec altera c. we must not thinke that there is one Church of the citie of Rome and an other of all the world c. By which wordes he sheweth that the Church of Rome if she will be a member of the Catholike Church must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome Where I say we beleeue the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ vnto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth Bristowe obiecteth suppose that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime as farre as the Church reacheth To this impossible supposition I aunswere that one King should haue no more authoritie than euerie King hath nowe But Bristowe obiecteth that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers c. Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike I would pull them downe In the motiue of Apes he discharged me from being a Puritane by his censure but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre that I should also be a traitour as he and all his fellowes are To his wise obiection I aunswere that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers so they are no Ecclesiasticall but ciuill Magistrates and the Church may be without them as it was many hundreth yeares Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians they haue chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had Dauid Solomon Iehosophat Ezechias Iosias c. But Christ professing that all power is giuen him Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie he might commit what authoritie he would and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe teach and baptize◠and to one of them singularly feede my lambes and my sheepe No maruel though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe Christ saide to one feede my lambes and sheepe therefore he saide it singularly and he hath vniuersall charge and all his successors to But for the Popes supremacie the Apostle saith expresly 1. Cor. 12. the heade vnder Christ can not say to the feete you are not necessarie to me But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse vnder Christ when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and the whole church also is like If you seeke the head of euery seuerall congregation you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof but if you seeke the head of the whole Church the scripture teacheth but one which is Christ for one head vnder another in one whole body is monstrous But you thinke perhaps Christ as he is head of his Church may say to the feete he hath no neede of them and therefore it must be vnderstoode of an head vnder Christ but then you must remember that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe yet as he vouchsafeth to take vpon him this office to be head of the Church he is not perfect without al his members which is the singular comfort of Gods children Ephe. 1. ver last But Saint Paule Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith vnder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie This cause is a shameles and senseles lie for no antiquitie for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed the see or the decrees therof Again what reason is it that Peters successors should be included more thē the successors of the other Apostles seeing this souereigntie of Peter is not grounded vpon his Apostleship but vpon his Bishoplike office as Sander maintaineth As for the principalitie of Apostleship principalitie of the Apostles chaire which he quoteth out of August de bapt Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. epi. 162. haue often bene shewed to be vnsufficient to make euery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in
in the tables and at the celebration of the Lordes supper before canonization was thought to pertaine onely to the Pope As for our abrogating of Saintes dayes doth not disproue our Communion with the Saintes which is in consent of their faith not in celebrating of their feastes Concerning the canonization of King Henrie the sixt Bristowe requireth mine authour for a dilatorie plea because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption Mine authour is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henrie the seuenth where I said we acknowledge those to be Saintes whose names are written in the booke of life Bristowe like a blacke dogge scoffeth at it and saith we might doe well to set out that booke in print that they might correct their Calender by it Or else the Churches declaration is the most certaine way to knowe who are written in it If none should be written but such as the Pope doth canonize for that is your Churches declaration innumerable Papistes should haue no place therein and not onely Papistes but the true Saintes of God of whome not one among tenne thousand hath bene canonized Where I say the Popish Church doth iniurie to the Saintes of God that she doth not so account them while they liue Bristowe saith I would be called Saint Fulke by mine owne industrie and that out of hande Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scornes to delude the textes of Scripture which I cited to proue that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saintes euen in this life not by their owne industrie and merites but by the sanctification of the bloud of Christ. He is angrie that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their Goddes saying wee doe the like in canonizing our selues because wee account our selues Saintes and true Christians which is all one and because I shewe the emulation of the Bohemians in solemnizing the memories of Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage which differeth as much from Popish canonization as their faith and religion differeth from Poperie In the 47. Demand of cōmunion of Saints he boasteth of increase of Papists in England affirming that beside thē which are Catholike in heart and of their communion there be innumerable of them reconciled which he saith to prepare the minds of his friendes vnto their intended massacre and rebellion I suppose in deede there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors but yet not so many but they may be numbred But howe many so euer they are I doubt not but there are Christians of such number and power in England as are able to giue all the Papistes both on this side the sea and beyond it as blacke a day as the Popes armie found in Ireland if euer they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable deuises In the 48. Demaund where I shewe the fruites of the Gospell being vrged thereto by Allen Pur. 241. to appeare notably in the liberall prouision for the poore of all sorts in England and namely in the citie of London Bristowe calleth it beastly impudencie yet is he not able to name any Popish citie that maketh such prouision but falleth into open railing vpon the corrupt manners of all the citie as though for the fault of many which yet Gods name be praised are not the most the whole citie were not inferior to Sodome and Gomorrhe in wickednesse In which place as being very populous there are many offenders so are they punished if their offences may be knowne But who so knewe London in the time of Poperie and nowe also considereth the manners of the multitude must be a very vnequall iudge if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number though he can not see it all As for the citie of Rome which Bristowe compareth with Solomon whose Priestes were more excellēt than the report that went of him as by the storie and relation of them which knewe it before this time so by report of some which euen in this time haue visited the same we haue sufficient vnderstanding that without great reformation it still continueth the mother of all abhominations of the earth and reaching forth the cup of poisoned wine vnto such as seeke her whorish familiaritie maketh them therewith so drunke that there is no cause why Bristowe should maruell why nothing confirmeth more our countrimen in Poperie nor alienateth them from the Protestants than to goe and see Rome The eleuenth Chapter What grosse contradictions Fulke is driuen to vtter against him self while he struggleth against Gods Church and the doctrine thereof As in his whole replie he hath drawen almost all the arguments and authorities which I vsed in those two treatises vnto other endes and purposes than for which I brought them so to make a shewe of Contradiction he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places compareth them together to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth to thinke that I affirme and denie meere repugnancies without any possibilitie to reconcile them But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place in which they are written I hope there are not many of so meane iudgement but they will acknowledge they are rather the cauils of Bristowe than the contradictions of Fulke The first Contradiction he noteth that I say Art 96. You are neuer able to aunswere the arguments that Peter was neuer at Rome And thē where is the Apostolike see c. And thē on the conirarie side the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles it was an Apostolike Church For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I aunswere In the first part he falsifieth my wordes which are these You are neuer able to answere the arguments that are brought to proue that Peter was neuer Bishop at Rome and then where is all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession c. The Church of Rome might bee an Apostolike see though Peter was neuer there but all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession are vaine if Peter was neuer Bishop of Rome The second Those auncient Fathers did appeale to the iudgement of the Church of Rome against all heresies and among the Catholike Churches especially named the Church of Rome because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the bragge of the Romane faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine but patched by him yet if I graunt the sense and wordes to be as he hath forged them they are not contradictorie to the latter proposition For heretikes may bragge of that which Catholikes vse to doe and yet not be Catholikes The thirde It had by succession speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉 retained euen vntill their dayes that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 374. Contra She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishoppes except so many schismes
most places and persons alwaies 27 Christes church is nowe by GOD enlarged further than the Popish church Ar. 12. 3. 69. Contra It is but a small flocke in comparison of the malignant church of Antichrist whose number is as the sand of the sea Apoc. 20. The Popish Church is not so large as the malignant Church of Sathan by many partes which containeth all the wicked of the world the name of Antichrist is added by Bristow Yet are there more Antichristes than the Pope although he be the chiefe that sitteth in the temple of God 28 It is a good argument that the Popish church is not the church of Christ because it was neuer hidden since it first sprang vp in so much that you can name the notable persons in all ages in their gouernement and ministerie and especially the succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order vpon your fingers And it were a token that our church were not the true church if wee could name such notable persons in their gouernement and ministerie Ar. 27. Contra Such officers as are necessarie for the conseruation of Gods people in the vnitie of faith and the knowledge of Christe our Church hath neuer lacked notwithstanding that through iniurie of the time because our Church had not so many Registers Chroniclers and remembrauncers the remembraunce of all their names is not come vnto vs. For the authoritie of the Bible we haue the testimonie of the true Church in all ages Our congregation hath euer had possession of the Scriptures GOD hath neuer suffered the true Church to be destitute of the necessarie vse of the Scripture Which the Popish Church hath so kept in an vnknowne tongue that the people could haue no vse much lesse the necessarie vse thereof The Church of GOD hath alwayes had Schooles and Vniuersities for the maintenance of godly learning The true Catholike Church hath alwayes resisted all false opinions It was neuer so secrete nor hidden but it might be knowne of all those that had eyes to see it That a thousand yeares there was gathering together for preaching ministring and correcting God hath alway stirred vp some faithfull teachers The Church hath neuer bene afraide to doe her office towardes her children and true members in teaching exhorting comforting confirming c. Ar. 28. 27. 9. 6. 5. 52. 11. 74. 75. 26. 82. In these large propositions howesoeuer they be patched I see no contradiction Except these be contraditories The Church was sometime hidden from her enemies and yet where shee was gathered did performe all duties to her friendes and children It was not seene of the blinde but it was seene of them that had eies 29 The Popish Church was neuer hidden since it first sprang vp Ar. 27. Contra The Church of Rome hath not alwayes practised open preaching and neuer preached the worde of trueth Ar. 85. There was small preaching before the orders of begging friers began to supply the want of the pastors And yet the popish Church glistered in her whorish pompe 30 Touching the text Matthewe 5. of a citie built vpon an hill which can not be hidden after he hath giuen his sense of it he saith Hereby it appeareth howe fondly some Papistes and some of the Doctors in their errour doe expound this place to groue that the Church must alwayes bee visible Ar. 100. Contra euen in his owne exposition there It is properly meant of the Apostles and their suâ—â—essours the Ministers of the Church he teacheth them aboue all other men to looke diligently to their life and conuersation for as they excell in place and dignitie so the eyes of all men are set vpon them As a citie builded vpon an hill must needes be seene of all that come neare it so they being placed in so high an office and dignitie shall be noted and marked aboue all other men One part of the Church is alwayes visible to the eyes of all men and can not be hidden and yet the whole Church and so also that part is not alwayes visible but may be hidden and was hidden for a thousand yeares So he saith The whole Church which is the mysticall body of Christe is inuisible Although the ministers of the Church and their conuersation can not be hidden from the members of euery particular Church 31 The true Church decaied immediatly after the Apostles time And so the errour of praying for the dead was continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ vnto a plaine departing away into the Church of Antichrist Contra The Primitiue pure church for the space of an hundreth yeares after Christ. Againe Anno 607. The church fled into the wildernesse there to remaine a long season where she hath not decayed but bene alwaies preserued vntill God should bring her againe to open light nowe in our daies The true church shall neuer decay but alway reigne with Christ. The false synagogue shall ' daily more and more decay vntill it be vtterly destroied with Antichrist the head thereof If this be not contradiction it is much worse to wit that Luther and his Apostles haue giuen vs a visible church which shall not decay Whereas Christ and his Apostles gaue vs a visible church which did decay yea and plainely depart away into Apostasie The places shew that decaying hath double vnderstanding The true Church soone after the Apostles decayed in syncerity yet neuer decayed nor shall decay in continuance Luther gaue no Church but euen that Church which is best lightened by his preaching may decay in sincerity if the pastors be not diligent to teach the word of God simply 32 At euery word hee calleth the Pope Antichrist and the head of the malignant church Contra in some places he maketh two distinct heades and their distinct companies As when Mahomet in the East and Antichrist the Pope in the West seduced the world then the church fled into the wildernesse Againe The Popish church is not in euery part of the world for Mahomets sect is in the greatest part Ar. 16. 65. I call the Pope Antichrist oftentimes but that I call the Pope head of the malignant Church though Bristowe saith I doe it at euery word yet he is not able to note one place where I doe it rather Bristowe maketh a flat contradiction in saying of me At euery word he calleth the Pope the head of the malignant church Contra In some places he maketh two distinct heades and their distinct companies 33 That the true church may erre and hath erred notwithstanding any priuiledge it hath by Gods spirit we heard him say cap. 3. Nowe to the contrarie Neither hath the spirit of God failed to leade her into all trueth There be some prerogatiâ—es of Gods spirite that are necessarie for the saluation of Gods elect as the gift of vnderstanding the gift of faith c. And these the spouse of Christe hath neuer wanted True faith c. might be signes of the true church The spouse
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
kept 350. yeres past was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity but only of the Papistes no more was any that followed at Constance Basil Trent nor yet that of Florence in which although there were some Grecians yet the councell of Basil was against it and many Orientall Churches that were neuer called to it neither was there any thing for transubstantiatioÌ„ or adoration therein agreed by the Grecians that were there For in the last session it is thus recorded Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis summus pontifex petiit vt de diuina panis transmutatione quae quidem quarta quaestis fuiâ— in Synodo ageretur At Graeci dixerunt se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae â—auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse cùm pro illa tantâ—m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit Which foure questions beeing dissolued the Pope desired that of the diuine transmutation of the bread which was the fourth matter in controuersie it might bee treated in the synode But the Grecians sayed that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental Church coulde handle none other question seeing the synode was called together for that only question of the proceeding of the holy Ghost Fourthly although Berengarius was condemned by three Popish councels and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures and the iudgement of all the auncient Church for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time the same being nowe taught in England is true doctrine and no heresie Wherefore none of the foure certeinties are certeine and true on Sanders side But he will examine vs what Gospell what Church what councels we haue First he saith we can bring no Gospel where it is writen This is the figure of my body Neither doe we affirme that it is onely a figure of his body nor denye that it is his body after a certeine manner as Augustine sayth And Sander will not deny but that it is a figure which were not true except it were proued out of the Gospell which speaking of the Cuppe sayth This is the newe Testament in my bloud And what Gospell doeth Sander bring saying This bread is turned into my body To the seconde demaunde I answere The primitiue Churche for sixe hundred yeares did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament as wee doe during which time as there was no controuersie so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine As there are many other articles agreed on both partes which were neuer decreed in generall Councels because there neuer was question about them But when the question did arise it was in the time of the prophecyed defection from Christ vnto Antichrist and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it neither yet can by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ and the tyrannie of heathen Princes which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie But the first sixe hundred yeares saith Sander make not for the Sacraments which is declared inuincibly by three meanes First diuerse fathers require vs instantly to beleeue these wordes This is my body c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense And yet no wise man will require vs to beleeue figuratiue wordes O shamelesse and senselesse heretike will not euery wise man require vs to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture Are not these wordes true although they be contrarie to naturall reason sense The rocke was Christ I am the true vine I am the doore c and if these wordes are true are they not to be beleeued of vs in their true meaning euen so these wordes This is my body are true in their meaning and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vnto them The seconde reason is that the same fathers teache expressely that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries which is a lowd lye vnderstanding it of popish adoration The third reason is because the fathers teache that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament But this is false for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ which is by his incarnation for our coniunction by the sacrament is neither naturall nor corporall but spirituall vnto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vs. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding the sixe hundred yeres make still for vs. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres sayeth Sander by the writings of the fathers of those times because none of them goeth about to prooue that the body of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie or haue vsed such wordes as the Sacramentaries do now vse If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely although his negatiues are not all true For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes the sacrament to be the very body of Christ Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament it argueth that none in their time did worship it seeing you Papistes confesse that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake if it be not consecrated and therefore teach men to worship it with this condition when they see it if it be consecrated Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie weâ— vse when we teache that it is a figure a token a representation a signification a similitude a symbole a type of the body and bloud of Christ and what wordes soeuer wee vse wee vtter none contrary to their meaning and teaching of the holy sacrament But saith Sander that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe it hindereth not the reall presence because signes instituted by Christ haue reall trueth in euery sacrament Neither doe wee say the contrarie but that the reall trueth of Christes body is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament of the supper euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vs in the sacrament of baptisme and yet we deny the breade which is the signe to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ euen as we deny the water which is likewise the signe to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost But the fathers saith Sander are not against the doctrine of the Papistes because no Papist findeth fault with them By the same reason he might proue that none of the Iurie which haue found a theefe guiltie did goe against him because the theefe challenged none of them And yet
of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
the body bloud of Christ is made The bread saith Sander cannot take the word which is not directed to it Yes as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God spoken by God to men and by praier directed to God by men and not to the creatures that are eaten dronken The same Irenaeus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying Panis percipiens vocationem dei bread receiuing the calling of God is not now common bread but the eucharistie consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly If vocation be not here taken for inuocation or calling vpon God as it is most like yet at least it is taken for the vertue of Gods word which it may receiue although the word be directed to men and not to bread But the earthly thing wherof the sacrament consisteth saith Sander is the old forme of breade as though accidents without the subiect and substance of earth be earthly Secondly the heauenly thing is the body of Christ this is true if he ment as Irenaeus meaneth the body of Christ the diuine vertue and efficacy of Christes body sacrificed for our redemption But as he vnderstandeth it for the naturall body of Christ like as it is monstrous to affirme that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter so is it hereticall and anabaptisticall to say that the naturall body of Christ is an heauenly matter or substance The second authority is Iustinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis c. Wee haue learned that the foode which is consecrated by the worde of praier which wee tooke of him to be the fleshe and bloud of Iesus Christ. He yeldeth the wordes of Iustinus who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the worde Foode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which foode our bloude and flesh by transmutation are nourished which confuteth transubstantiation and carnall eating But to the matter in question This worde of prayer saith Sander can bee none other but This is my bodie as though Christ hath not taught vs to frame our prayers but by that saying But see the conclusion that will followe admitting these wordes This is my bodie to bee wordes of prayer Then are they not wordes of performance for prayer and performance differ as much as promise and performance Againe when Sander saieth they are not wordes of preaching because they are wordes of prayer for preaching is directed principally to the people and prayer onely to GOD. Marke the conclusion If they bee wordes of prayer and wordes of prayer bee directed onely to God then are they not directed to the bread The like may be gathered of that hee saieth that they bee wordes of sacrifice which were Idolatrie to direct to any but to God and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatrie for directing them to the people not remembring that it is as great Idolatrie to directe them to the breade if they were wordes of sacrifice But they are directed finallie to GOD saieth hee as though wordes of preaching were not finallie directed to GOD and by the way of sacrificing they appertaine to the breade as though wordes of sacrificing appertaine not to the people for whome the sacrifice is offered as much and more then to the thing that is sacrificed For what is a sacrifice of an Oxe or a Calfe of which hee taketh similitudes but a figuratiue preaching Hath any man so greate leasure to confute such insensible arguments But Hierom ad Euag. tom 2. sayeth that at the praiers of Priestes the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Doubtlesse at none other prayers saieth Sander then wherein they saye with minde of sacrificing ouer breade This is my bodie c. seeing his argument is nothing else but doubtlesse wee may not doubt vppon it A straunge prayer wherein nothing is asked and hee that prayeth speaketh not in his owne person but in the person of another But August saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised hath taken away the promising words I wil giue is a word of promise I haue giuen is a word of performance The Euāgelists testifie that Christ hath giuen therfore his words are not wordes of promise I answere The Euangelistes testifie that Christ gaue bread which he brake and gaue vnto his disciples promising the communicating of his body to them that did eat it faithfully in saying this is my body which is broken for you the condition of faithfull receiuing required in all Gods couenantes must needes be included in this although in euery place where mention therof is made it be not expressed From this matter he returneth to the former talke of sacrifice These wordes saith he fulfill the act of sacrifice and therfore they are called of Iustinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worde of prayer or vowe It is false that he saith that Iustine calleth these words This is my body wordes of praier or vow for he saith the food to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for which thankes is giuen by worde of praier yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God specially the oblation of the holy altar And againe Orationes c. We take praiers to be saied when that which is on the Lords table is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed This blessing and sanctifiing saith Sander is made by praier that praier is vowing to God of bread and wine let all this be granted what followeth The word of vowing is to say ouer it This is my body That is the matter in controuersie which with Sander is alwaies a good argument but yet remaineth to be proued But now we must see the difference betwen Caluine the old fathers Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and giuen thankes said This is my body and confessed the chalice to be his bloud and taught a new oblation of the new testament which also he prooueth out of Malachie the Prophet Caluine will haue no working vpon the breade but onely in the mindes of the hearers and neither praier nor vowe nor sacrifice in these wordes Neither hath Sander prooued that in these wordes is either praier vow or sacrifice Neuerthelesse Caluine acknowledgeth the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers vnder stoode namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of attonement for sinnes For thus writeth Irenaeus Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum c. He taught the oblation of the newe testament which the Church receiuing from the Apostles offereth to God through out the whole worlde euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes Here is no oblation of the body and bloud of Christ but thanksgiuing vnto God for his benifites And what the sacrifice foreshewed
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude which is shed for the remission of sinnes and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words This is my bodie The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the new testament The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude thâ—t confirmeth the newe testament but that is reall bloude therefore this is reall bloude saith Sander I answere the argument is naught because in one proposition the speach is figuratiue in the other proper But he replieth that the olde testament had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof but the bloude of Calues therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe by which the newe testament is confirmed and therefore there was no figure of that bloude to bee made Heb. 9. But S. Luke and S. Paul by reciting the words otherwise doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification that no reasonable man will say that the name of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude saying this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude In deede I confesse in this sentence the worde bloud signifieth properly the bloude of Christ shedde vpon the crosse which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice But then the former wordes This cup is the newe testament are figuratiue for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not â—e is not the new testament but a sacrament or signe thereof which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vpon the crosse This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation carnall presence for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul giue the true sense of these wordes This is my bloude which is shedde for you which in effect is thus much to say this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul but bloude taken properly whereby he woulde prooue that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists bloud should not be taken figuratiuely which is as good an argument as this Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech is taken properly therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe it is not taken figuratiuely The 25. circumstance of these wordes This â—â—ppe or Chalicâ— The cuppe saith he is named to shewe the manner of fulfilling the olde figures in which the bloud was put in a cuppe as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed and presently sprinkled I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices but that was referred to the passion of Christ and not to the sacrament for those bloudie sacrifices were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie and not in the supper The supper as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments is diuerse in signe but equall in signification with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the baâ—en did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe as Sander trifleth but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse But Oecumenius saith that in steede of the bloud of beastes our Lorde giueth his owne bloud and that well in a cuppe that hee might shewe the olde Testament to haue shadowed this thing before I answere that Occumenius a late writer to whose authoritie I am not bound of the Sacrament speaketh sacramentally ascribing to the signe that which is proper to the thing signified Otherwise there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation The 26. circumstance of the verbe est left out in S. Lukes words Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe â—s according to the phrase of the Hebrewe tongue what verbe will you bring in his place saith he the verbe significat you cannot because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominatiue case then must you needes haue the verbe est but as soone as it is in his place shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat c And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him But when you haue spoken your pleasure of taking in and casting out of compulsion enforcements of verbs substantiue and adiectiue c. I pray you what great piaculum is it if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat to make good the logical sense And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est in these wordes of Saint Luke This cup is the newe Testament in your 23. circumstance when you expound it so that you say that which is in the cup is not the newe Testament which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed You will say the figure is in the words newe Testament and not in the verbe esâ— Then must I sett vpon you with your owne weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance I would faine see the brasen face of Sander with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe The 27. circumstance of these wordes which is shedde for you This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud which is shedd for you saieth S. Luke Here saith Sander the relatiue which is referred to the Nowne Cuppe and not to the Nowne Bloud because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominatiue case and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wherefore the sense must be the cuppe that is that which is in the cuppe was shedd for vs. but the onely reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes therefore the onely reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument if hell were lett loose To the graÌ„maticall construction I haue answered sufficiently in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church vnto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza that those wordes might by error of the writers be taken into the text nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes in that place as in diuerse other yet at the lest that the article prepositiue standeth for the relatiue 〈◊〉 as often it doth and that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstoode being left out as in the former part of the sentence For howsoeuer it be it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus This cuppe that is to say this bloud which is shedde for you is the newe Testament in my bloude
all out ouer it The verbe is in the words of Christ The bread which I will giue is my flesh although it respect the naturall flesh of Christ yet it prooueth not that the verbe is in the supper must be referred to the sonne more then the same verbe in Saint Paul the Rocke was Christ yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of wordes I will reason with him in his owne sense and ouerthrowe him in his owne conference I say not saith Sander that the bread shal be but the bread is my flesh If the bread is his flesh then his flesh is the bread and if the worde bread signifie an eatable thing as we haue bene often told then the flesh of Christ is an eatable thing when he so saith and consequently the flesh of Christ which he said he would giue for the life of the world might be eaten before the institution of the Sacrament The word coÌ„municating is the next matter of conference which being vsed of S. Paul doeth interprete the verbe Is to signifie a substantiall and not an accidentall being for communicating doeth shewe that all thing is common betweene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction commeth betweene these two but a barâ— signe of bread can make no such communicating because it is cleane of another kinde c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger he disputeth against that often times which wee vtterly denie For we neuer saide that naturall bread or a bare signe can make vs to haue communion with Christ but the verie bodie bloud of Christ yet not corporally but spiritually ioyned vnto vs of which communicating the bread and wine are effectuall seales sacraments As for Sanders assertion of communicating to signifie all thing common betwene Christ and vs not only without diuision but euen with out distinction is horrible heresie and detestable blasphemie Saint Iohn Ep. 1. Cap. 1. vseth the same worde often saying that wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating with God the father and his sonne Iesus Christ haue wee then all thing common with God the father so that ther is no distinction betweene vs and him O intollerable blasphemie The same Apostle saith wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating one with another by which he not only sheweth that the worde of communicating signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth but also teacheth that our communicating with Christ and with the members of Christ is spirituall whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 10. We being manie are one bodie c. And last of all that wee haue this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or communicating by other meanes then by receiuing the Sacrament That wee haue seene and heard saieth Saint Iohn wee preach vnto you that you also may haue communicating with vs that our communicating may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ. Againe if we walke in the light as he is light we haue communicating one with another and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne doeth purge vs from all sinne The last wordes of conference are bodie and bloud for which he heapeth vp so many texts as they are named in and more then either they are named meant in to proue that bodie and bloud stand not for signe or figure of bodie and bloud and in the ende concludeth that because these wordes are taken properly therefore to defend the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue is ignorance in Grammar and Logike blindnesse in diuinitie malice inexcusable in the day of iudgement But so long as it is but Sanders sophisticall conclusion it is little to be regarded what Logike diuinitie or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus let all the Logicians diuines and men of good conscience consider vntill Christ come and iudge all things The worde bodie in this saying This is my bodie is not figuratiue therefore the whole saying is not figuratiue This signifieth a generall thing and not that thing in his hand Is declareth that to be presently which is not vntill all the wordes be said bodie is taken properly Therefore the sense of this whole saying vttered together cannot be figuratiue But nowe we shall see conference of other places of scripture It is euident he saith that Iohn is not Elias and vseth many arguments to proue it yet will he admitte no arguments out of the present words This is my bodie to prooue that the saying is figuratiue as well as This is Elias And yet there is more oddes betweene the bodie of Christ and naturall bread then hee saith is manifest betweene Iohn and Elias Secondly The rocke was Christ must needes be figuratiue because it speaketh of two diuerse natures as though bread and the body of Christ were not two diuerse natures But there is no conuersion of any rocke into Christ for Christ did neither say of the rocke This is my body nor coÌ„mand vs so to say Seeing the holy ghost saieth the rocke was Christ who doubteth but that it was so by the word of Christ although not expressed by Moses And seing the Apostle speaketh so in the time past who will denie but that Moses or any man by the authority of Gods wordes at such time as the Israelites did drinke of it might haue said of the rocke This is Christ The other places which proue the absence of Christ in his humane nature froÌ„ the world as the poore ye shall haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwaies He is risen he is ascended into heauen he sitteth at the right hand of God c. Sander saith they denie not his inuisible presence in the Sacrament nether is any thing impossible to God and Christ sitting in heauen is almighty c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles that they shal see him no more after his ascension saying I goe to my father and you shal see mee no more Iohn 16. ver 10. but also he telleth them plainely and without any parable as they confesse that he leaueth the world and goeth to his father Io. 16. ver 20. whereas if he had saied I departe out of the worlde when he onely departed out of sight and purposed still to be present inuisibly he had not spoken plainely but very darkely Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd lib. 3. saith it is a great miracle that he which sitteth with his father in heauen at the same instant is touched with the handes of all men and deliuereth him selfe to those that will touch and embrace him It is manifest he speaketh of the heauenly mystery figuratiuely For immediatly before he saith when thou seest turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubâ—fieri c. the people standing about to be dipped and made redde with that precious bloud doest thou thinke thou art still among mortall men and standest vpon the earth Art thou not rather immediatly remoued into the heauens Doest thou not casting away all cogitation
be caried in his owne handes and at length concludeth that Christ ipse se portabat quodammodo he caried himselfe after a certeine manner when he said This is my body The meaning of Augustine is when he caried the Sacrament of his body To this Sander ioyneth the ioy that Dauid had by the fruit of corne and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise he preferreth the light of Gods countenance before all temporall benefites but it is ynough for Sander that he nameth corne and wine Likewise the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that comforteth the hart of the spiritual man Ps. 103. the meat that God giueth to them that feare him these if wee beleeue Sander were prophecies of the Sacrament in which is neither bread nor wine But of all other mee thinke Sander should haue held his peace of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunke Ps. 22. seing he wil not suffer ChristiaÌ„s so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice much lesse to be made drunk with it Peraduenture it is because the Papistes will keepe true Christians sober that they will not suffer them to drinke of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk O shameles hypocrites My soule yrketh to rehearse these grosse mockeries of Gods worde Elias is fedde from the ayer with breade and flesh and walketh 40. dayes in the inwarde strength of a peece of bread Yet in the first there was bread and flesh which would make well for the Lutherans in the other there was bread and water which would serue the turne of the Aquarians if these places were figures of the Sacrament The wheaten corne Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corne of the Church shall no more be giuen to her enimies that vine wherin she hath labored shall no more be drunke of strange children the corne of the elect and the wine that ingendreth virgins as the vulgar text translateth Zachary Cap. 9. If they perteine to the Sacrament doe rather fight against transubstantiation then for it As for the bread in Ieremie 11. wherein the wodde is fastened is a palpable error of the translator as I haue shewed before The cleane Sacrifice of Malachie is to be offered of euery one of the faithfull and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse The bread of Angels was Manna Psa. 77. which spiritually was the body of Christ as the Sacramental bread is to vs. Last of all Salomon saith and repeteth often No other thing to be good vnder the sunne besides eating drinking with gladnes and mirth where vnto Sander addeth that the best thing vnder the sunne may be eaten and drunken which Salomon neither said nor meant but that amongst the troubles and vanities of the world nothing was better for a man then quietly to enioy those things which God giueth and to lead his life peaceably iustly Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Sander concludeth that the custom of the scripture in commending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body bloud of Christ should be giuen vnder their forms I say it may more probably be gathered to shew that bread wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding with the body bloud of Christ. For it is a strange maner of coÌ„mending to praise the substance for the only bare shewes accidents therof Although the scripture in most of these places cited intendeth in deede neither the one conclusioÌ„ nor the other CAP. XIII These words of Christes supper Hoc facite do not onely signifie do this but much rather Make this thing wherof it followeth that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made Although Hoc facite might signifie nothing but make this thing yet it would not followe that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made but rather a SacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud which are two seuerall thinges which if he had commanded to be made he would haue said Haec facite make these things not Hoc facite make this thing But when Sander hath prated his fil of agâ—râ— facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the verbs facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to do which he cannot denie therefore will haue the verbe to fignifie in this place both to doe to make which is most absurd But S. Paul putteth the matteâ— out of question rehearsing the wordes of Christ perteining to the cup saith This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Hoc facite doe this thing as often as ye shall drink for the remembrance of me And telling vs what they should do he addeth a reason of that saying For as often as ye eat this bread drink this cup you shewe the Lords death vntil he come Behold what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him In eating drinking of this bread cup to preach the Lords death Sander will reply that This is general to all the Church but Christ saying Hoc facite speaketh onely to his Apostles and in them to all priestes I aunswere Christ speaketh to his whole Church neither can it be proued that the aposâ—lâ—s only were present And yet it followeth not that euery priuate man hath authoritie to minister the communion seeing God hath chosen special persons for the administration of all publike actions in his Church As for the saying of Dauid memoriam fecit c. He hath made a remembrance is to no purpose for although he spake of the sacrament as he doth not yet there is great difference betweene making the bodie of Christ and making a remembrance of his meruailous workes But Sander will faine the consent of the old fathers to proue that Christes bodie is made I will not denie but the fathers sometime vse so to speake when they vnderstande the sacrament signe and figure of Christs bodie and not as Sander doth his reall bodie to be made of breade yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite to be of a making as well as of a doing First hee alleageth the Liturgies of Iames Clemens Basil and Chrysostome although none of them is his whose name it beareth yet are they of some antiquitie and what say they Foâ—sooth there is a prayer in them that God would send his holy spirite vpon them and the holy giftes which may sanctifie and make this bread the bodie of Christ. Heere breade is made the bodie of Christ. Very good but by whom by the priest or by the holy ghost If by the holy ghost then it is not by vertue of these words Hoc facite which were not spokeÌ„ to the holy ghost but to men I omit that this prayer in the old Liturgies is vsed after the words of consecration rehearsed by which is giuen vs to vnderstand that the bread is made the bodie of Christ by the holy ghost in the faithfull that receiue the bread and not as it lyeth on the table The like
after an heauenly and spirituall manner in the Sacraments not by bringing the body of Christ downe vnto vs but by our ascending vp vnto him as Chrysostome sheweth plainly by that long allegory of the Eagles which he vseth in the 24. Homily Neither doth Chrysostome say that as those vngodly barbarous men did worshippe his body in the manger and handes of a woman so we being godly and ciuil must worshippe it lying on the altar or in the priestes hands in the forme of bread But he exhorteth by this exaÌ„ple his auditors to come often decently with dew reuerence preparation to the participation of the holy mysteries in which the same body of Christ though after an other manner is seene and dispensed But Chrysostom saith more plainely Hom. 28. I will shewe thee that in the earth which is worthy of highest honor Where can he shewe it saieth Sander but on the altar pointing to the host Yes forsooth he can shew it to the eies of faith for to the bodily eies he can shew nothing but breade and wine which is worthy of small honour But yet it followeth more plainely As in the pallaces of Kinges not the walles not the golden roofe but the Kinges body fâ—tting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heauen which is now sett forth to the earth to be seene What could the greatest Papist in Europ say more quoth Sander Verily no Papist that is aduised what hee saith will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seene but onely by the eies of faith and so the Lord of all thinges is shewed by preaching by ministring of the Sacramentes but not to bee seene with eies of the body but with the eies of the mind Wherfore seing Christ is set forth to be seene on earth which sight cannot be but by faith Chrysostome meaneth of a spiritual sight shewing manner of presence and not of a bodily sight shewing or manner of presence Neither doe we inuent any shiftes as Sander saith to auoide the adoration in question for it shall neuer be prooued that the Sacrament was adored in the primitiue Church in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papistes But beside Chrysostome wee must haue a plaine authority of Theodoret who disputing against an Eutychian that denieth the humanity of Christ reproueth him by the example of the Sacrament wherein two thinges are found saith Sander but Theodoret saieth there are two natures and substances breade and wine and the body and bloud of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica for the mysticall signes after sanctification depart not out of their nature For they remaine in the former substance figure and forme But now heare the shameles glosse of Sander In substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine So that in substances is not in substance but in accidentes wherevpon it will followe in Theodorets argument that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity but the substance of accidents thereof Secondly hee saieth The formes remaine in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained And is it the shapes or formes of bread and wine that nourished before while the substance remained was it the former nature of the formes to nourish O monster of impudency If the substance and not the shapes did nourish the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth remaine not in their former nature but haue taken vpon them a newe nature which no formes or shapes beeing accidents euer had before But hitherto Sander hath done nothing but by intollerable impudence sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret which is so plaine and direct against transubstantiation Now followeth the place for adoration which he citeth in Greeke for more credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The mystical signes are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are beleeued reuerenced Sander had rather say adored as being those thinges which they are beleeued to be Heere can be no lesse then reall presence and adoration And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sorte as Sander would haue him The mysticall signes are spiritually the bodye and bloud of Christ so to be beleeued and so to be esteemed reuerenced honored and adored not by any actuall conuersion of the elementes into the bodye and bloud of Christ but by the grace of God making the same spiritually which the signes represent outwardly And so shal Theodoret expound himselfe Dialogo primo Qui enim c. He which called his naturall body wheat and bread and nameth himselfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto the nature And whereas Sander concludeth vpon the place by him cited Therefore worshippe is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent It followeth immediatly after the wordes by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imagineÌ„ cum exemplari videbis similitudineÌ„ Oportet enim figuraÌ„ esse veritati simileÌ„ Compare therefore the image with the paterne or sampler and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure must be like the trueth Theodoret calleth the same mysticall signes which are reuerenced the image and the figure which represent the body of Christ which is the principal sampler whereof the Sacrament is an image and the trueth whereof the Sacrament is a figure Se you not what reall presence he maintaineth Who so will more at larg see Theodoret cited and obserued he may reade the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answere to the third booke of Doct. Heskins CAP. VI. The adoration of the body and bloud of Christ is prooued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first 600 yeares First he citeth the liturgies of Iames Clement Basil Chrysostom all which beare conterfeit names and yet say nothing to the purpose They report that the deacon said let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence What is this for adoration we also charge men to come with feare reuerence to the coÌ„munion Again the Priest said before the receiuing of the coÌ„munion Sancta sanctis Holy things are for holie men Sander laboreth to prooue that they spoke of the Sacrament as though we denied that the Sacramental bread and wine were holy things when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ to the worthie receiuers But Chrysostome ad pop Antioch Hom. 61. vppon the same saith Considera c. Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before the Angels ministring at the table the king himselfe is present
corpus suum appellat He calleth the bread his bodie But we cannot call a thing except we speake vnto it Therfore when Christ called the bread his bodie he spake vnto the breade as if he had said vnto the bread be thou my bodie Who woulde haue thought it Sander cannot call a stone a stone but he speaketh to a stone nor a shouell a shouell but hee speaketh to a shouell And with Sander it is all one to say This is a shouell or a stone and be thou a shouell or a stone Nay he will say with God calling and making is all one where he will make one thing of another In deede that is another matter If this will of God coulde be prooued of the bread to make his naturall bodie calling and making might be one and yet it woulde not followe that Christ intending to turne breade into his naturall bodie by these wordes This is my bodie coulde not doe it except hee spake to the bread But nowe let vs see howe hee proueth that Christ made the breade his naturall bodie First Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst init Cap. 9. Ante bene dictionem c. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde after consecration the bodie is signified He himselfe nameth it his bloude Before consecration it is named another thing after consecration it is called bloude And thou sayest Amen that is it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inwarde minde confesse That which the speech soundeth let the affection feele Out of these wordes Sander saith that it is euident that Christ spake to the breade and wine but by what reason I cannot deuise and that the making of them is in deede so as they are called and signified because the people answered Amen I graunt the breade and wine are made sacraments to signifie the bodie and bloude of Christe and that is it which the people confesse if Ambrose expounde the words of Christ truely when hee saith that the bodie of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called breade and wine before the words of blessing and afterward is called the body and bloud of Christ. This 1. witnesse speaketh not so much against him but Tertullian his second witnesse speaketh much more Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei He made the breade which was taken and distributed to the disciples his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say the figure of my bodie Loe hee made the breade his bodie Wee confesse but howe his bodie That is to say a figure of his bodie but beeing a figure stoppeth not the reall trueth of his bodie saieth hee no more then Christ being a figure printe or forme of his fathers substance which is yet also his substance in deede What sayest thou Sabellian heretike Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis from his father because hee is Homousion of the same substance and is not that proued because hee is Character substantiae patris And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the diuinitie with the figures of Christ. Yea saieth Sander There can bee no more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinion then to thinke that Christ is a bare man c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the olde Lawe And againe looke what oddes is betweene God and man so much beleeue thou to bee betweene his naming or his figures of the newe Testament and all other figures Why Sander were the namings in the old Testament of man and not of GOD Were the figures instituted of man and not of God Yea were they not instituted of Christe himselfe If they were instituted of God howe followeth thy beastly conclusion of the difference or oddes of figures and naming of the newe Testament and figures and namings of the olde Testament The rocke was Christ it was a figure and naming of the olde Testament so named and instituted by Christ himselfe why shoulde there be more transubstantiation of the breade then of the rocke except as thou wast euen nowe a Sabellian so in this thou art a Marcionite that beleeuest another GOD and Christ of the newe Testament then was of the old Testament Augustine speaking of the figures of the old Testament and comparing them with the figures of the newe Testament sayeth Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria sunt Those were sacraments they are diuerse in signes but in the thinge which is signified they are equall in Ioan. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer and beside this examining Tertullian let vs aske him what did Christ distribute to his disciples Hee will answere panem breade Againe howe made hee the breade his bodie hee answereth hee made it a figure of his bodie Yea saieth Sander the Sacrament is a figure of Christes bodie because it sheweth his death vntill hee come But what is the sacrament with you Papistes The naturall body of Christe Then the naturall body of Christe is a figure of the body of Christe if this bee not shamelesse trifling I report mee to you Tertullian is a good expounder to interprete the name of Corpus by figura Corporis if Corpus bee taken properly But to proceede The next reason to proue that Christ spake to the breade is this The Sacrament is a sacrifice the acte which offereth it and voweth it perteineth as well to the thing offered as vnto God to whom it is offered as when a Lambe is offered God in the Lambe is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked and praysed I omitte these straunge phrases God is prayed to in a Lambe c. But speake plainely Sander if thou darest is the Lambe spoken vnto when it is saide This is the Passeouer This is the bloude of the couenant which God hath made with you For thou must not thinke to reason with men in such sort as boyes woulde not suffer thee to passe The acte of sacrificing perteyneth to the thing offered therefore the thing offered is spoken vnto But howe prouest thou that this Sacrament is a sacrifice Because it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice made by his death vpon the crosse It must also needes partake that nature whereof it is a remembrance and consequently it must bee certainely beleeued to bee a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was Who will grant or how canst thou proue the maior of this argument Euery remembrance must partake the nature of that wherof it is a remembrance Is the remembrance of a man a man or the remembrance of God God or to pose thee in thine owne popery is the memory of a Masse as you call it a Masse But that reason cannot proue authority shall enforce First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei the eucharistie of