All true doctrine is taught in the scripture Purgatorie is not taught in the scripture therefore purgatorie is no true doctrine Bristowe denyeth both the maior and minor The maior I haue prooued in this chapter part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church which I also confesse to be the true Church in the thirde counce 〈…〉 of Carthage and therefore it is canonicall if any other scripture be Canonicall Supposing that which is false that the Macabees were canonicall yet is not Purgatorie prooued by them prayer for the deade doeth not necessarily drawe purgatorie after it The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade yet they doe not receiue the doctrine of purgatorie But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical he citeth the third councel of Carthage wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon whereas wee knowe there are onely three namely the Prouerbes the Canticles and the Preacher Therefore that canon prooueth a manifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon and say they bee Canonicall if any other scripture bee Cano nicall The Councell of Laodicea more auncient nameth not the Machabees Hierome a Priest of Rome expressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall Praefatione â—n Prouerbia Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues doe minister which agree that they were writen by the spirite of man and not by the spirite of God To proceede Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie that wee may not praye for all men liuing I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death of which Iohn saith I say not that you shoulde pray for it or that any man should pray for it as your vulgar traÌ„slation hath it But howe it is prooued out of that place he saith neuer a worde Last of all purgatorie is taught saith Bristowe Specially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently that Martha and Marie as the scripture is manifest did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his bodie before the generall resurrection If that bee so manifest what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Martha woulde haue Christ to pray for when shee saide thus vnto him But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges thou shalte aske of God God will graunt thee To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place Thus farre Bristowe But I pray you sir why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so expounde the place Peraduenture they were not worth the naming But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the comming of Christe to all times after as though I sayd that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie as Allen impudently coniectureth that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their prayers made at his tombe where there is no mention of any prayers but of lamentation only I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or honestie or else lesse impudence malice But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine order as I aunswered Allen but in this confuse manner to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt and then to play with them at your pleasure 2 Ab authoritate scripturae affirmatiuè First about certaine foundations of purgatorie and prayer for the dead I saide the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall Veniall shewing that all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or veniall except the sinne against the holy ghost Bristowe saith that I here graunt the doctrine and yet deny the distinction which is vtterly false for that all sinnes deserue eternall death and yet be pardonable it ouerthroweth the doctrine and distinction both For the Papistes holde that there are some sinnes so small as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe extendeth not vnto eternall death saying that hanging on tree or crucifying is not eternal death and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21. Againe euery one in the saying of the Apostle is not meant of Christians but of them which trust in the lawe it selfe c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce Nequaquam moriemini Tush you shall not die the curse of God doeth not bring eternall death you neede not be so greatly affraide of it c But where learned you Bristowe that the curse of God which is vppon him that hangeth on tree is not a visible token that hee deserueth eternall death Is â—ot the text plaine against you Deut. 21. When a man â—ath sinned worthy of death and is iudged to death â—anged on the tree his carcase shall not remaine vppon 〈…〉 e tree but shal be buryed the same day for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath â—iuen thee to possesse He is not therefore accursed beâ—ause he is hanged on the tree if he were innocent but â—ecause he hath sinned worthie of death so is hanged 〈◊〉 which respecte our sauiour Christ being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree though most innocent in his owne person 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes became â—ccursed for vs not to discharge vs of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternall death but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall vppon an innocent person but 〈◊〉 redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe whiche wee â—aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifolde sinnes and transgressions And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e payne of eternall death I wishe euerie man 〈…〉 at will not bee deceyued with the flattering voyce 〈…〉 f the Serpent to giue eare to the worde of GOD â—here hee shall see that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people â—gainst idolaters cursers
called them to washing called them to baptisme so manye hundreth yeares before baptisme was instituted Is it not therefore euident that hee calleth them to repentaunce Or else hauing first so grieuously accused them of their present sinnes doeth he shewe no comfort but in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme which no man liuing could then possibly obteine in such manner as you meane no not the Prophet him selfe I might well say to you as you say to mee in another place In good sooth Dauus these things are not aptly diuided according to their times And that Christ Iohn 13. speaketh not of the ceremonie of baptisme it iâ— manifest by diuerse reasons but of his grace by which he washeth vs from all our sinnes And therefore be sayth to Peter except he were washed of him he coulde haue no part with him But neither Peter nor any other was or is baptised of him with water Iohn 4. therfore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptisme And where you adde that he which is so washed must neuerthelesse wash his feete that is say you his veniall sinnes which he committeth afterwarde although he continue withall in the cleannesse of baptisme before he be all cleane and aske mee what if he dye before he wash his feete Admitting that the feete should signifie none but veniall sinnes I aske you againe who shall wash his feete but he which washed Peters feet for the true text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath no neede but that his feete be washed Peter could not wash his owne feete in this figuratiue signification but except Christ did wash him he could haue no part with him But if we should take the feete onely for veniall sinnes and the generall washing for baptisme this inconuenience would follow of Christes wordes that he which is baptised and purged from veniall sinnes neede no purgation to clense him from mortall sinnes but is perfectly cleare The wordes of our sauiour are generall cannot admitt your exception of continuing in the cleannesse of baptisme therefore the feete signifie all sinnes to be pardoned after the first grace purging vs which is in deede represented and ratified in baptisme but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament and often times deuided For Iudas of whome you speake if he had dyed immediatly after he was baptised should not haue gone to heauen as one throughly washed or clensed by â—aptisme Where the Papists vrge the saying of Dauid Psal. â—1 Amplius laua me c. Wash me more from mine inâ—quitie Bristow saith I haue nothing to answeare but â—hat it was at Gods hand and by the meanes of Christes â—lood that he prayed to be clensed Purg. 97. 78. Whether I haue nothing else to say let the readers of â—hose places iudge But that which I here saye taketh aâ—ay Purgatorie and all satisfaction of mans merite alâ—hough Dauid as all the faithfull do pray that they may â—aily more and more feele the mercy of God and grace â—f Christes redemption to the full satisfying of their â—onscience and perfect assurance of faith and hope of eâ—ernall life which though it receiue daily increases yet â—he vertue of Christes death in which God is reconciled â—nto vs is alwayes one and the same Where I charge Allen that the sufficiencie of Christs â—assion is counted a light argument vnto him Bristow â—aith it is too light in deede to beare downe any doctrin â—f Christ. But when or out of what scripture shal wee â—eare the doctrine of Christ for mens merites satisfaâ—tions propitiatorie or purgatorie it selfe Where I denye that our workes are any parte of saâ—isfaction for our sinnes of which the price is throughâ—y payed in the passion of Christ Bristow obiecteth the â—aying of the Apostle Phil. 2. Worke your owne saluation and yet it is God that worketh in you As though there were no working of our saluation but by satisfaction for our sinnes Wee worke our saluation when we walke in the way that God hath called vs to passe through vnto the free gift of eternall life namely in faith obedience thankfulnes c. which are so farre from merite that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to perfourme any good thing according to his good pleasure Phil. 2. And therefore wee neede not the schoole distinction of causes for the satisfaction of our sinnes by our workes which is onely the effect of Christes death and passion needing no helpe of our workes which worde Bristowe sayth mine ignorance so much abhorreth and yet the scripture often sayth that God helpeth both Christ Ps. 17. vs. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christs helpeth vs Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture that our workes helpe the passion of Christ I abhorre not the worde of helping when it is vsed in that sense that God and Christ should helpe vs or God helpe Christ in respect of his humanitie but that man by merite should helpe God Christ in the worke of our redemption satisfaction for our sinnes or purging of them I abhoâ—â—e with all my heart yea I spit at it and tread it vnder my feete But if the mercie of God saith Bristowe although iâ— be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christs passion nor the working of it or merites of that man how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christs passioÌ„ enforte you to exclude either his baptisme his good workes in his members or also the working of his baptisme and the working or efficacie of those good works especially seeing the scripture is plaine for all Bristow vnderstandeth not how the mercie of God is omnisufficient which is not as eâ—ery one will imagine but as it may stande with his iustice which is not otherwise satisfied but in the passion of Christ which being thereby fully satisfied we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth but that which not onely the scripture denyeth but nature it selfe abhorreth that contradictories should be both true Namely the iustice of God is fully satisfied by the onely suffering of Christ And the iustice of god is not satisfied by the onely sufferings of Christ but by other meanes also as by our own workes or suffrings or other mens for vs. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristowe citeth proue this later part of the contradiction to be true First where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration The text is when the louing kindnesse gentlenes of God our sauiour appeared not of the works of righteousnes which we wrought but according to his owne mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and the receiuing of the holy ghost which he hath powred foorth plentifully vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour that being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternal life Here it is manifest we are so â—aued by baptisme that we are iustified by his grace ther â—ore not by the merite of baptisme or satisfactioÌ„
argumentes with that impudent slaunder of all the church of God which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it within these 300. yeres I passe ouer come to the matter in question I said Purg. 57. against Allen mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell it is to be proued with manifest arguments autorities out of holy scriptures Although they were not nor yet are in perfect blessednes God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs shuld not be made perfect Heb. 11. But by this text saith Brist S. Paul doth meane that their soules were not yet admitted into heauen How proueth he that forsooth the old testament did consummate nothing c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted Christ died c. A sore bolt as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen but by the new testament or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith Heb 9. That the way of the saints was not yet opened while the first tabernacle stood Bristow addeth to the text of his own into soncta or heauen wher the apostle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death resurrection ascension the effect wherof neuertheles was extended no lesse to the fathers of that olde testament then to vs. Thirdly the apostle saith Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place by the bloud of Iesus which hath dedicated that new liuing way for vs through the vayle that is his flesh All which proueth nothing but that there is no entrance into heauen but by Christ which way is comon to all the saintes of God of all ages But Bristow biddeth me conferre the end of my text Heb. 11. with the beginning where he saith they receiued not the promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating I admit it for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies The consummation of which promise perfection of the saints God reserueth vnto one time when we shal all receiue the promise consummation together that they without vs saith he shoulde not be consummate the same reason is of the apostles fathers of the primitiue church vs of the later church them that shal be to the end of the world Now to mine arguments autorities of scripture I reason that seeing they all beleeued in Christ they had euerlasting life entred not into condemnation but passed frō death to life Ioh. 5. To what life saith Bristow but the life or resurrection of their bodies for vntil the last day all the dead are in death O prodigious heretike call you that a passage frō death to life to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years Is God then to this new Saducee the god of the dead not of the liuing yea he saith that life after corporal deth in the new testament lightly euery where signifieth the resurrection of the bodies What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world which shal be interrupted with so long abyding in death 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith he that beleueth in me hath alreadie eternal life if they that are passed out of this world are all in death wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie Limbus patrum or death The second argument is of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike Apoc. 13. To this the beast hath nothing to answere but that it is not said that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world but that all the reprobates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh And because Apoc. 17. the words be whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world by a monstrous construction contrary to the manifest composition and pointing both in the Greeke vulgare Latine to be referred not to the lamb slaine but to the booke of life As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world which is no where else written in the scripture but heere the cause of the trueth he will not haue to be my fonde sense but because his death was preordeined of God and prefigured so long before A substantiall cause by which we may say that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world because his death was so long before ordeined of God and prefigured in the death of Adam The third argument is that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life sayeth that there is peace and that they shall rest in their beddes Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon or hell is prepared of olde for the wicked To this he answereth that Esay speaketh not of his owne time but as a Prophet of the time now since the cōming of Christ who is our peace as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures And what a shamelesse answere is this to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet After a little quarreling against my translatiō the sense wherof he cannot deny he asketh if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine But sir Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe will not onely giue them rest without sense of paine but peace with happinesse and prosperitie Finally he sayeth Topheth or Gehenna was not the onely hell because our Creede and the Scripture sayeth that Christes soule was in hell I answere that hell signifyeth either the place or state of torments for sinnes in the former Caluine whome you slaunder sayth not that Christ was in but in the later when he complained that he was forsaken of God there is not therefore proued by Christes discending into hell any other place or receptacle of soules in hell but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned The fourth argument against Limbus is that Lazarus was carryed by Angels not downe to hell but vp to Abrahams bosome But the riche man being in hell looked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of Bristowe asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to
meere Bristowisme For Caluin neuer helde any such matter as he imagineth He asketh whether this be to say that all men are iustified before they come to the sacrament as though Caluin said they were Whereas a great number are iustified neither before nor after the receipt of them But this is to say that as Abraham was iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament so are all they that are iustified iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament Secondly he asketh whether all sacraments be seales of such a matter Yea verely or else saint Paul proueth the iustification of the Gentiles by faith very feebly after the example of Abraham Thirdly hee asketh whether all Iewes were iustified before they came to circumcision which I neuer hearde any man to affirme but that as many Iewes as were iustified were iustified by faith as Abraham was circumcision no more regarded in their iustification then it was in the iustification of Abraham Last of all he asketh whether circumcision were to the Iewes a seale of such a matter still he calleth it such a matter because he dare not name iustification by faith O the stinge of a wicked conscience But to the question I aunswere that to the Iewes which were iustified by faith circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which is imputed to them as it was to Abraham without merite or respect of their circumcision Other pointes of mine ignorance he saith are about the holy spirite of promise whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the meane to make vs partakers of the fruites of Christes passion Item the meane to graffe vs into his bodie Item that it worketh in vs faith In the conclusion he noteth the ignorance of the Protestantes where they holde this spirite promised to be nothing else but the gifte of tongues that is to say Christs greatest gifte to be his least gifte Out vpon the shamelesse lyer which of the Protestantes canst thou name that so holdeth We all holde that the holy spirite of promise Ephes. 1. is the spirite of adoption by which we are assured of eternall life Rom. 8. And as for the spirite prophecyed by Ioel and Iohn Baptist promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension we holde not to be specially of the spirit of adoption which the Apostles al the faithfull had before Christes death and much lesse of that spirit which your Bishops giue by imposition of hands in their counterfeit confirmation which is the spirit of vanitie whose fruites appeare not in any of the receiuers But we holde that promised gifte of Gods spirit to be that wonderful reuelation of knowledge and vnderstanding vtterāce in all states degrees of true Christians generally beside a great number of particular giftes not perpetuall bestowed vpon the Church in diuerse speciall members for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel As for your conference of scriptures whereof you prate so much is a meere confusion of matters of diuerse senses According to which manner of conference not weighing the sense of euery place by the proper circumstances thereof but following onely a sounde and similitude of some wordes euerie heretike might colour his heresie were it neuer so absurde as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth that they patched diuerse sentences together to make a shewe as though their heresie were contained in holy write which was nothing else but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in peeces shoulde of the peece after his owne manner ioyned together make the image of a dogge or a foxe or other foule beaste Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirite of promise wherewith the faithfull are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirite of tongues and prophecie which came vppon the twelue on whom saint Paul layed his hands Acts 19. The last errour of faith hee chargeth mee to bee the onely meane which hee saith is no meane but a disposition hee thinketh it sufficiently discouered before wherevnto I also thinke that I haue made answere sufficiently About the sacramentes in speciall The necessitie and effecte of baptisme Concerning baptisme I say it is necessary for al christians to receiue that are not by necessity excluded from it 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith it is necessarie for all men but when it cannot be actually had the effectuall desire of it supplyeth the want which desire infantes haue not and therfore onely the actuall hauing of baptisme doth quicken them in Christ being dead in Adam Touching the saluation of infants of the faithful dying without baptisme I said nothing but by implication that there is no such necessitie of Baptisme that the want of the outwarde sacrament shoulde condemne the seede of the faithful perteining to gods election couenant where there is no default either of contempt or neglect of it Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth the effectuall desire in men of yeares to supply the want which yet the wordes of his text Iam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authoritie of his doctors that condemne all vnbaptised infants wil not beare what reason is it why he should not extende his supply vnto the effectuall desire of those infants parents and friends whose faith he acknoledgeth to supplie the want of actuall faith in the infants that are baptised Beside this hee saith that he did mark wel ynough where I said that the sacramēts giue grace according to the election of God As though all infants baptised so dying be not of Gods electe or that some be not saued although they be baptised asketh what scripture I haue for this geere But in deede he bow leth at the wrong marke for in saying that the sacramentes tooke effect according to the faith of the receiuer and according to gods election I ment that God in baptisme giueth grace to infāts which haue no actual faith of their owne according to his eternal electiō in mercy But whether al infants baptised so dying be of the nūber of gods elect as I do not know so I wil not contend But this I know that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laide the receiuing of baptisme cannot make them Gods elect Ephe. 1. Where Bristowe vrgeth the saying of saint Peter 1. Pet. 3. baptisme saueth vs now it is a weake argument to proue the baptisme of infants either to saue them all that receiue it or to condemne all that receiueth it not For explicating him selfe of what baptisme hee speaketh he addeth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh as you woulde say outwarde washing which is the externall sacrament but the interrogation of a good conscience towardes God which is the thing signified by outwarde washing and yet not founde in infantes but in them that haue knowledge among whom whosoeuer hath it not hee shall no more bee saued then any was preserued
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
figuratiuely because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing vntil it be plainly vnderstanded This I denie for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing which the speaker meaneth although the hearer vnderstand it not at all Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely was easily vnderstood of all his hearers which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches But Sander replyeth that the Apostles were simple men Idiots and vnderstood not the scriptures therefore they could not vnderstand how the signe might be called by the name of the thing I answere although they were simple vnlearned men in deede and such as vnderstood not the scriptures in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office as was laid vpon them yet Sander doth them too much wrong to make them or any godly person of that time so ignorant in the scriptures that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament considering they were circumcised did celebrate the Passeouer euery yere the verie name wherof must needes teach them howe the signe may be called by the thing signified And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous foolish that Sander prateth of the true first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ This cupp is the newe Testament What verifying of contradictories what diuers soundings what true tokens what things present O great diuinitie of Popish doctors But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud if it be euident saith he it is quickly vnderstood Call women and children and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make Nay rather call Turkes Sarazens and aske the question if it must be euident to them vnto whome the mysterie is not reuealed The token is euident to them that are instructed not to such as neuer heard of it as belike where Sander hath to do women and children are But God be thanked women and children instructed in the Church of Christ can tell him howe euident a token it is of their spirituall feeding on the bodie and bloud of Christ. But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance as he termeth it Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen c. where as much is giuen as is signified by the wordes If this be true all cases reserued both episcopall and Papall are in case to bee forgiuen by euery priest of the lowest degree But here the Apologie which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance is charged to haue falsified the wordes of Christ saying they are meant whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe yet doeth it not falsifie them except Sander will saye that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification Howe Christes wordes are to be taken as Sander will not dispute in this place so neither will I stande here to discusse But this is a bolde determination of him that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall wordes of a Sacrament cannot be vnproper For the nature of the thing doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes If this doctorall determination be true then these are proper speaches The rocke is Christ the Lambe is the Passeouer the cuppe is the newe Testament baptisme is the lauer of regeneration And S. Augustines rule De doct Christ lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giue place to D. Sanders decree Si autem flagiâ—iis c. If the words of scripture seeme to coÌ„maunde any wicked nor vngodly acte or to forbid any profit or well doing it is a figure Except ye shall eate saith he the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act Therfore it is a figure commanding vs to communicate with the Lordes passion and profitable to kepe in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Againe Locut de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt noÌ„ dixit tres dies significaÌ„t Et multuÌ„ haec locutio notanda est vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur Inde est quod ait Apostolus Petra autem erat Christus non ait Petra significabat Christum Three basketes are three daies he said not they signifie three daies And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie Hereof it is that the Apostle saieth And the rocke was Christ hee saith not the Rocke did signifie Christ. Finally where Sander saieth it is against the nature of a Sacrament not to signifie plainly I agree with him affirming that the bread and wine which is eaten and dronken doe plainly signifie that we are fed spiritually with the very body and bloud of Christ vnto the full assurance of our perseuerance continuance in the fauour of God euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life and the wordes in this Sacrament be as plaine as in the other but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion CAP. XII Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. Sander to dispute for his life would take the conclusion thus it is a signe of his body therfore it is his bodie in deed So that Sander to dispute for his life would ouerthrow the nature of opposites which cannot stande both together at one time and in one respect But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God hee will haue the argument tryed by the word of God And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ which he saith were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth which they signified because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine and the grace of saluation were not yesterday and to day the same for euermore the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde Hebr. 13. Apocalipse 13. Secondly hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe speaking to the leprous man to him that had the palsie to the disciples of Iohn baptist to the dumme man to proue that when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh When Sander shal dispute for his life he must chuse him an easye aduersary for els he will soone loose
might be◠conuerted yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction at which neuer a Iewe was present And where as Sander argueth that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament hee sheweth double follye for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud and secondly when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade to bee redde of all men howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion before infidels that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous as Sander imagineth Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet in other words of the same homilie as you haue seene hee speaketh of the presence of Christ euen in his sacraments The third Booke In the Preface of the third Booke he promiseth to proue First that Christ in the sixt of S. Iohn spake of the gifte he made afterwarde in his parting banket Secondly that the real presēce of his flesh and bloud is euidently prooued by such words of promise as he there vttered Afterwarde he excuseth himselfe that he is driuen to handle deepe obscure matters being a poore scholler of Oxford and yet inferior to 200 that were in the late Tridētine councel So that if any Parliament man brought vp in hawking and hunting think he writeth too profound ly for his vnderstanding he must thinke that he is lesse able to be a iudge of this whole controuersie and of all questions in religion As though it were necessarie for euerie member of the Parliament that shall entreate of cases of religion to be trained vp in schoole points of Popish diuinitie which the farther they be from the vnderstāding of that cōmō people y◠further they are from faith Christiā religiō which ought to be cōmonly know◠euē to the simplest women and children And albeit that euerie parliament man is not able of himselfe to iudge of al controuersies of religion yet they altogether by the instruction of so many godly learned men as are among them may decree what lawes are necessarie to bee made for the aduancement of Gods glorie in religion as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet tranquillitie To conclude his foolish preface hath neuer done craking of hard and difficult matters as though he were a man of such ripe iudgement in them that whatsoeuer he did write were the Oracles of Apollo where as in deede euerie meane wise man shall easily perceiue that when he would seeme to winde himself out of a difficult and intricate matter hee sheweth more boldnesse in aduouching then soundnes in his approuing CAP. I. The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn is declared First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three wayes by faith and spirit onely without the Sacrament in the Sacrament of the Altar onely without faith and grace or in both together Of the laste kind of receiuing he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vpon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not which the sonne of man will giue them This gift saith hee is plainelie meant of his last supper and so saith Theophilact a late writer But because they could not come to the working of this gift without faith vpon him therefore hee teacheth for a preparation that he is the breade of life c After which preparation made he returneth saith he to expounde his owne gifte shewing most expressely that which he will giue in his last supper And the breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come when Christ spake vnto his disciples but Christ saieth his peculiar gifte was to come This onely reason he vseth in this Chapter Wherein you must note first that heere of a falsifying minde hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them For his wordes are these And the breade that I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde In which wordes the gifte is manifestly referred vnto his passion and not vnto his supper Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe was from the beginning of the worlde yet that singular act by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vnto eternall life and was giuen for meate was not then performed but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion For all benefites of Christe haue like streames flowed alwayes from the bloud of his crosse and our redemption and reconciliation thereby If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence leaueth out these words which I will giue which it is certaine by the Greeke text of saint Iohn that our sauiour Christ did speake hee cannot so escape for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion brought vnto it although it want the wordes yet may well reteine the sense But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes which he knoweth both to haue beene vsed by Christ and which giue a cleere and cleane contrarie sense to that whiche hee affirmeth and that in so weightie a matter as is the passion of Christe wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde CAP. II. It is prooued by circumstances and by the conference of holie Scriptures that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one nor altogether prooue that Christ speaketh of his supper otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter The first circumstance is the time which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth before his supper instituted to argue that he speaketh of his supper is a vaine argument both because the time is vncertaine and also because the time of Easter if it were certaine hath better relation to his passion then to his supper The 2. circumstance is the myracle made in breade A ridiculous matter as though it were not made also in flesh But in deede the
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
vp and as it were couer the face of the earth and so compasse the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie that therfore the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie is as large and as many in number as their enimies when experience proueth the contrary at this daye if all that be baptized were true Christians and the Church of Christ yet are they nothing in multitude in comparison of the Turkes and Infidels wherfore for any thing that is here shewed the Church should be inuisible to the worlde when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyrannie Namely of their church and of ours by conference of places that are about Antichrist That neither Antichrist nor the apostasie agreeth to Bonâ—face the third Being demaunded Ar. 35. what yeare the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed I answere that although many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church of Christ immediatly after the Apostles time which the diuell planted as a preparatiue for his eldest sonne Antichrist yet we may well saye that the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed that yeare in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation which was 607. when Boniface the third for a great summe of money obteined of Phocas the murthering Emperour that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the church which diuelish heresie increased vntill the yeare of our Lorde 1414. when the councell of Constance decreede that â—acrilege of the communion in one kinde Likewise Ar. 16. After I had shewed the persecution of the true Church vntill Constantine and soone after by the Arrians then the ouerthrowe of the Empire by the barbarous hereticall idolatrous nations I conclude But when Mahomet in the East and Antichrist the Pope in the West seduced the world with most detestable heresiâ— then was fulfilled that which was reuealed to S. Iohn Apoâ— 12. The woman clothed with the Sunne which is the Church was so persecuted by the dragon that shee fled into the Wildernesse there tâ— remaine a long season These sayings of mine Bristowe rehearseth cut off in the wast as though I referred the dragons persecution only to the Pope which I say plainly began before but was most perfect concerning the apostasie in the raigne of the popish Antichrist Againe he sayeth I doe apply this prophesie onely because of the Popes primacyâ— which is false but because of his false doctrine and heresie also For that he sayeth the Popes primacie is a trueth of the Gospell and practised before Bonifacius â—he referreth vs for proofe to Saunders tray terous booke of Monarchie and I for aunswere will send the reader â—o my ouerthrowe of his Romish Rocke The suppoâ—ed contradictions I referre alwayes to the proper place Cap. 11. But O sir where is the Scripture that you promised â—o bring so cleare c. sayth Bristowe Sir my promise was for articles of doctrine in controuersie between vs â—nd not for the fulfilling of euery prophesie which the â—ffect must better expound oftentimes then the words But furthermore sayth Bristow you make shewe of a â—ext which is against you and vse most detestable falâ—ification saying the Church should remaine in the wildernesse a long season but the text is cleane contraâ—y a very short season Say you so Bristowe where haue you these wordes in the text a very short season But you haue 1260. dayes and a time two times and â—alfe a time And can you tell vs the length of these â—imes or of the dayes either In the weekes of Daniell â—nto whome you referre the exposition of the two times for you haue not two times but times indefinitely in the reuelation the propheticall dayes are as long as common yeres As for the time two times and halfe a â—ime who is able to define the length of them But by Scripture you will proue a very short season and first you iumble together two diuerse prophecies of Apoc. 12. 20. of the loosing of Satan for a short season Why man short and long be Relatiues The time of Satans loosing is short in comparison either of the long time that he was bound or of the long and eternall time in which he shall remaine in perpetuall bondage For though Antichrist raigned in open reuelation and not in mysterie of iniquitie onely by the space of 807. yeares more or lesse and yet be not vtterly consumed but yet in his consumption Neuerthelesse for a whole 1000. yeares after Christ the gospell of saluation continued in the church though much defiled with superstition yet sounde in the onely foundation Christe openly testified by sundry publike teachers vntill Syluester the seconde Anno Domini 1000. by the diuell him selfe as euen the Popish stories confesse was put in possession of the See of Rome then was the church driuen into greater straightes then euer before the doctrine of saluation being turned into idolatry and blasphemie But it is monstrous that Bristow expoundeth the consummation of the 1000. yeares by the gospell speaking of the consummation of the worlde Matt. 24. Marke 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and Ierusalem with the ende of the worlde And where he citeth Matth. 42. staâ—iâ—â— post streight after the persecution of those short dayes considering that from the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the ende of the worlde so many hundreth yeares are passed he might learne at the lest not to measure the length and shortnesse of times by mens reckonings but to remember that with the Lorde a thousand yeres are as a day and a day as a thousand yeares 2. Pet. 3. His other patching of Centones like Valentinians in steede of conserence of scripture because they consist of his onely assertion without reason or authoritie I neede not to confute As that the dayly sacrifice which Daniel prophecieth should be taken awaye by the death of Christe Daniel the 9. 12. he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the Masse By the which â—aint Paul prophecied that wee shoulde announce our â—ordes death as though Saint Paul spake that of a saâ—rifice and not expresse of eating that bread and drinâ—ing that cuppe of the Lorde Like wise speaking of the abomination of desolatiâ—n he sayeth Daniel agreeth with the gospell the â—pocalips where he sayeth Daniel 12. From the time â—hen the dayly sacrifice shal be taken away and the abâ—omination set vp for desolation dayes 1290. Blessed is 〈…〉 e that expecteth and cometh to dayes 1335. What agreement is betwene 1260. dayes and these two numâ—ers beside that Daniel 9. the Angel sheweth that â—he abhominatian of desolation in the temple and the â—esolation shall continue euen to the consummation â—nd end Last of all he will prooue that the season is short â—ut of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians that they be not troubled as though the â—ay of the Lorde were then instant for Antichrist must â—irst be reuealed And
â—ontrarie to mine owne rule Bristow saith I conclude â—egatiuely out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth â—one other comfort to moderate the mourning of the faithfull but onely the quiet rest of them that are asleepe in the Lord and the hope of their glorious resurrecâ—ion ergo there is no comfort in praying for their soules 〈◊〉 aunswere mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen which citeth that place to prooue that as immoderate mourning is against the hope of the resurrectioÌ„ so being ioyned with praiers and almes it hath the liuely hope of life in those that sleepe in peace This aduantage Bristowe hath by rending and tearing mine argumentes from the bodie of my booke that it cannot bee perceiued vppon what ground I vse them Neuerthelesse hauing often before in that aunswere to Allen protested that hee coulde bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the deade this argument is to be referred to the same conclusion after this manner If in most conuenient place the holy ghost â—oyne not prayer and almes to moderate mourning for the departed then doeth he ioyne them in no place but in most coÌ„uenient place he ioineth not ergo in no place The maior is prooued by the wisedome of Gods spirit which alwayes choseth that which is most conuenient the minor is manifest and granted ergo the conclusion is true But Bristowe asketh me if I preaching to moderate the mourning of the faithfull vse none other comfort then these two I answere him concerning the state of the departed I vse none other proper places of coÌ„fort but these two the hope of their glorious resurrection their quiet rest in the meane time But S. Paul saith Bristowe speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death although he name them that are asleepe in the Lorde If they sleepe in the Lord they are not onely at rest but in happinesse Can you interprete to sleepe in the Lord to be in hellish torments such as you faine your purgatorie paines to be Are they not blessed which die in the Lord The Prophet Esay saith cap. 57. of the righteous after their death that there shal be peace they shall rest in their beddes Ergo they that sleepe in the Lord enioy a quiet rest The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul reherseth what he receiued and deliuered concerning the sacrament but oblation for the dead he rehearseth noâ— ergo he neither receiued nor deliuered it So you make sayth Bristowe as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he sayeth afterwarde of setting other things in order I answere that obiection is auoided in the same place immediatly after Pur. 362. therefore I will not here repete the answere And that it is not of one place negatiuely you your selfe here confesse that I denye it to be written by any of the Euangelistes which entreat of the sacrament But you are not ashamed to affirme that the Apostle intended no more in that place but to correct the sinne of vnworthie receiuing vppon coulot of a place of Augustine Ep. ad Ian. 118. Cap. 3. Inde enim For that respect the Apostle also sayeth that they receiue it vnworthily who do not by a reuerence singularly dewe discerne it from other meates as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently considered Doth Augustine say or can any man proue out of his saying that he ment that S. Paul intended no more but to correct the sinne of the vnworthie receiuing But admitt it were so how could he better correct that sinne then by shewing the whole institution substantiall matter and fourme ende and vse of that sacrament and so he doth although ceremonies and externall obseruations about it he doth not expresse The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer 19. which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diuerse other ordinances concerning the dead in which was no sacrifice or prayer for the dead was offred but that they were so separated from the liuing that the priestes might haue nothing to do with them but in speciall cases Bristowe sayeth I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buryed In â—eede so to conclude were to conclude of one place â—egatiuely but I presuppose my former assertion that â—n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead no not in those which conteine â—peciall order for the dead I adde further that the â—riest to whoÌ„ specially offering of sacrifice perteineth â—s so separated from the dead that he is forbidden to â—ourne for them much more to offer sacrifice for theÌ„ â—r to pray for them which can not be without lamenâ—ation for their miserable estate c. From these particular places I come to the whole â—awe and conclude negatiuely thus All lawfull sacriâ—ices were prescribed by the lawe Sacrifice for the dead â—as not prescribed by the lawe therfore it was no lawâ—ull sacrifice The answere he sayth is by returning it â—ppon my selfe but in deede hee maketh it by denying â—he minor affirming that sacrifice for the dead was preâ—cribed vnder the name of sacrifice for sinne I might â—ere reply out of your owne doctrine that not the â—uiltinesse but the paine of sinne is in many to be purâ—ed which haue obteyned remission of all their sinnes â—ither by Popes pardon or priestes absolution or by â—ods forgiuenesse vnto the penitent But I will folâ—owe the argument I shewed that the forme of sacrifice â—as such as could not be offered but of the liuing or â—or the liuing because they are commaunded in all saâ—rifice for sinne generally to lay their hand vppon the head of the beast to be sacrificed Hereunto Bristowe replyeth that this grosse absurditie would follow that â—acrifice for sinne could not be offered but of theÌ„ that were present therefore not for the children the sicke â—or captiues for kings and cities of the world vncircumâ—ised and diuerse other sortes I reioygne that no sacriâ—ices for sinne but sacrifices of thanksgiuing or prospeâ—ities coulde be offred for the absent and especially for the vncircumcised which could not haue remission of sinnes before they were ingraffed into the people of God but temporall benefites at the prayers of Gods people they might obteine As for children sicke captiues c. they might haue remission of sinnes without sacrifice which was but the Sacrament thereof as well in their childhoode sickenesse captiuitie when they coulde not offer according to the lawe as in time of desolation and destruction of the Temple when no sacrifice for sinne coulde be offered by any or for any but onely in the place where the tabernacle or temple was Wherefore the sacrifice of Iudas Machabaeus wheresoeuer hee learned it hath no warrant iâ— the law The fourth argumeÌ„t of the whole scripture negatiuely to conclude I saide it is good logike after this manner
of parents murtherers ince 〈…〉 uous persons remouers of their neighbours markes oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers c. and generally against all transgressours of the Lawe vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned â—n the same wordes ' that it is to the rest Marke also where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse proâ—eth all them that bee vnder the lawe to be subiectâ— vnto this curse howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous but continuing vnder the Lawe they may auoyde eternall death And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle is not meant of Christians I woulde knowe of him whether the Galathians to whome saint Paule writeth were not Christians but yet seduced by false Apostles to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe which as it was impossible so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ vnto the curse of God That true Christians are discharged of this curse it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction and not that the sinnes themselues deserue not euerlasting death though they bâ—â— neuer so small of their owne nature by the sentence of Gods curse which is a iust rewarde for transgression Heb. 2. The two other places that I cite for this purpose The soule that sinneth shall dye Ezech. 18. and the rewarde of sinne is death Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consummate gendreth death as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne not brought into acte to deserue death because shewing that the cause of mens destruction iâ— in themselues from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death Our sauiour Christe saith this is condemnation that light is come into the worlde and men haue loued darknes rather then light Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also of this place to conclude that condemnation perteineth not to men but where the light offered is refused or that if Christ had not come none had ben condemned Iohn 3. and likewise yea much rather wher Christ saith If I had not come and spoken vnto them they shoulde not haue had sinne Iohn 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement before Christ came But let vs examine his reason It is sinne saith he as soone as it is gendred but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred Therefore some sinne there is that gendreth notd eath The minor is false for Sainct Iames saying that sinne consummat gendreth death doth not say that sinne gendreth not death so soone as it is gendred But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the scripture hee addeth also an exception vnto sinne consummat that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death except the matter bee of weight accordingly For els that the lightnesse of the matter as an idle worde bringeth not death hee sufficiently signifieth in saying that in a weightie matter the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not These are his wordes by which you may see that without all shame hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames as hee can finde neuer a worde in hiâ— sounde like such 〈◊〉 saying But this is the manner of heretikes which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture and to inforce the wordes thereof against all equitie to signifie and say whatsoeuer it pleaseth them Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death I will proue out of his owne saying by this argument Whosoeuer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements deserueth eternall death Whosoeuer offendeth in one is guiltie of all therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one deserueth eternall death The maior I truste you will graunt The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and offende but in one pointe hee is guiltie of all Then seeing euerie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe as Sainct Iohn affirmeth Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes but also small sinnes wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake for bee the sinne neuer so small it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes which reason the Apostle vseth to prooue that hee which offendeth in one is guiltie of all And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe sufficiently proue that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall Whether after sinne remitted payne may remayne That God remitteth the punishment with the fault in respect whereof the punishment is due I proue by Ezek. 18. 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences that truely turneth vnto him bringing forth the fruits of repentance Bristow saith this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment whereby it would ensue that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet Psal 24. 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth and Lorde remember not our olde sinnes which are the prayers of the penitent to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes which once obtained they say The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs as farre as the East is from the West Psalme 102. That may bee saith Bristowe in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment I will proue that to bee false To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West is as farre as may bee but not to bee remoued from temporall punishment is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West But the whole Psalme saith Bristowe is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fauour by absolution but of our finall restitution which shall bee at the later day What can bee saide more absurdly Thankes are there giuen to GOD not onely for spirituall benefites but also for temporall The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them is there set forth which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth and East from West As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church vppon the feaste of Christs ascension to proue that it pertayneth altogether to the later day is as good as it is true â—hat the wordes there spoken are onely of our finall â—estitution at the later day To the example of the publican hee aunswereth â—hat there is no more saide but that hee went home â—ustified
more then the Pharisee yes there is saide that â—ee was iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes which hee â—onfessed not trusting in him selfe that hee was â—ighteous although hee ascribed all his vertues to the grace of GOD as the Pharisee did O GOD I thanke thee c. Iumpe with the Papistes Luke 18. But Bristowe asketh me howe I proue that hee which is iuâ—tified may not bee in some debt seeing all the iuâ—tified children of GOD are taught to pray forgiue â—s our debtes I proue it thus Hee that is by GOD â—ustified is accounted for iust But hee that is iuste is â—n no debte for sinne therefore he that is iustified is in â—o debte for sinne That the faithfull are taught to â—raye daylie forgiue vs our debtes it is because they â—inne daylie and by sinne enter into debte and thereâ—ore haue neede of dayly remission to continue iustiâ—ied The Prodigall childe Luke 15. hee saithe is the Gentile receiued by baptisme who if after baptisme he became prodigall hee saith I haue not proued that being receiued by penaunce wee must enioyne him no more punishment then at his other receiuing Beside that he restrayning this parable onely to Gentiles comming first to Baptisme depriueth the faithfull of inestimable comforte hee neither hath any worde in the scripture so to restrayne it and the whole contexte is against him For Saincte Luke sheweth the occasion of the three parables of the loste sheepe of the loste Groate and of the prodigall Childe to haue beene because the Scribes and Pharisees murmured that he receiued the Publicanes and sinners which all were Iewes and circumcised yet fallen from the couenant of God by infinite and notorious sinnes therefore according to right analogie the lost Childe euen as the lost sheepe and lost Groate is euerie penitent sinner the elder brother as the 99. sheepe and 9. groates are the Scribes and Pharisees which through hypocrisy in their owne iudgement are righteous and neede no repentaunce To the 2. debters Luke 7. he answereth that although Christ forgaue them both yet they both had to be forgiuen after according to the proportion of their loue This importeth manifest contradiction he forgaue all yet something was not forgiuen Yea saith Bristowe Marie had much sinnes forgiuen her because she loued much and therefore long after her hartes conuersion and therefore after her first forgiuenesse Christe sayeth Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is a strange kinde of reasoning Christe shewing the cause of Maries great loue to haue bene for that great sinnes were forgiuen her expresseth in voyce that which she before conceiued by faith that her sinnes were forgiuen her Ergo after her first forgiuenes she had need of a second which she procured by loue And yet it is more fonde that in saying to Simon and of Simon the Pharisee To whom lesse is forgiuen he loueth lesse he giueth him to vnderstand that he owed more then he was aware and therefore he should increase as Marie did in penitentiall loue First howe proueth he that Simon was this other detter to whom lesse was forgiuen Secondly admit that he was howe proueth he that he should shewe as great penitentiall loue as Marie seeing his debt was not so great as Maries and therefore needed not so great a proportion of his loue according to his owne heresie of merite Thirdly when Christe sayeth To whom lesse is forgiuen he loueth lesse he speaketh not so much of the quantitie of sinnes but the acknowledging of them greater or lesser For he that confesseth great sinnes to be pardoned acknowledgeth that he is bound to great loue as Marie did the Pharisee who though his sinnes were as great as Maries in GODS sight by meanes of hypocrisie more abhominable yet was so blinded in opinion of his owne righteousnesse that he sawe them not and therefore this loue was as colde as he imagined his sinnes forgiuen to be fewe and small Thus the historie of the sinneful womans great loue proueth nothing that punishment remayneth due to be payed after the debt is forgiuen Whether this woman were Marie Magdalen as Brîstowe calleth her I wil not here dispute Saint Luke giueth her no name Whether Purgatorie follow vpon this last foundation The foundation is ouerthrowen for all sinnes are proued to deserue eternall death and when God pardoneth them he pardoneth them clearely as well the punishment as the guiltinesse for what should he punishe in them that are guiltie of no sinne by his pardon Therefore where I cited Psalm 103. That God hath not dealt with vs according to our sinnes c. Bristow is driuen to his former shift that these wordes are spoken of the Prophete onely for the time of the finall rewarde which I haue confuted before Concerning those that repent at the houre of death I sayde they haue rewarde of eternall life as well as they that repent sooner by authoritie of the parable Matthew 20. of them that came the last houre to worke in the vineyarde Bristow saith I am deceiued because I cannot see any iustice in mercie Yes verily I see the iustice of God fully answered in Christ not in the person that needeth mercie who is pardoned and iustified gratis freely Rom. 3. 11. But the spirite of God sayeth Apoc. 2. that he will giue to euery one of you according to his workes wherevpoÌ„ Bristowe inferreth the God is not alike good to al that he hath once shewed mercie vnto for Christ to all the baptised I aunswere that texte is a threatning to Iesabel them that commit fornication with her if they do not repent from their workes For it foloweth immediately But to you I say and the rest in Thyateiâ—â— that haue not this doctrine and which haue not knowen the deapth of Satan as they say I wil not lay vpon you any other burthen c. although it be true that God rewardeth euery man according to his workes which is in qualitie good or euill not in quantitie as much or as little as they deserue What shall I say that Bristowe bringeth in a varietie of pence contrary to the scope of the parable affirmeth the pence to be wages for the working that also by bargaine So that eternall life is not the gift of God neither are men saued by grace not of workes in his iudgement contrary to the Apostles plaine doctrine Eph. 2. In the conclusion he saith If you can prooue that God will shewe as full mercie also where he findeth not that fulnesse of Christes grace then call vs hardly enimies for not suffering God to shewe mercie to whom he will But where wanteth that fulnesse of Christes grace in any of Gods electe Is it where greatest sinnes be The Apostle answereth where sinne hath abounded grace hath more then abounded Rom. 5. Wherfore the fulnesse of the grace of Christ being extended to the greatest sins what should we doubt that the lesser should not be swallowed vp of it Whether
be carryed vp sir it signifieth to be carried away and seeing the riche man looking vp seeth Lazarus afarre of it followeth that Lazarus was carried vp and not downe But you reply it foloweth not that he was carryed into heauen Then you may say he was carried vp to hell But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heauen although one were vpwarde and also farre off both in state and situation purgatorie peraduenture betwixt them This is a goodly faith that standeth vpon peraduenture and this may be c. The Scripture saith ther was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance betweene them which cannot agree to Limbus which must be harde adioyning to hell or else it is not Limbus But if they were no way nigh together sayth he it will not followe that Abrahams bosome was heauen I answere if they were no way nigh together it could not be hell nor Limbus of hell which is the thing I was to proue Also the text is plaine that Abrahams bosome was a place of comfort And other place of comfort then heauen or Paradise which is all one for the soules departed I finde none in Scripture The last argument is this If righteousnesse belong to Abrahams children the rewarde of righteousnesse also perteineth to them Therefore Abrahams bosome was open to receiue all the childrem of Abraham euen as the bosome of God was readie to receiue Abraham because he was his sonne through faith Heere Bristowe noteth no small blasphemie proceeding of grosse ignorance saying That which is proper to vnigenitus the onely begotten sonne of God hee maketh common to Abraham Why Bristowe because vnigenitus is eternally and after his proper manner in the bosome of the father doth it thereof followe that none can be in the bosom of GOD but the proper place of Christ is made common to them You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my grosse ignorance in the scriptures and haue you such fine knowledge in them that you coulde not see what Esay writeth Chap. 40. according to your owne translation Ecce dominus Deus c. Beholde the Lorde God shall come in strength and his arme shall haue the dominion beholde his rewarde is with him and his worke before him As a sheepheard hee will feede his flocke hee will gather the Lambes together on his arme and beare them in his bosome in sinâ— suo leuabit Beholde you greate and mightie doctours in the scriptures the bosome of GOD as of a shephearde is open to receiue all his Lambes howe much more as a father to receiue his children But to the argument you aunswere The rewarde of righteousnesse may belong to one and yet not payed him as soone as hee dyeth Saincte Paule saying expresly of Abraham and many of his children that they departed not receiuing the promises but beholding them a farre off and all these renouned by faith receiued not the promise That is saith Bristowe the inheritance the rewarde of righteousnesse I replye the rewarde of righteousnesse cannot belonge to one but it must bee payed him as soone as it is payed vnto others to whome the same rewarde vppon the same cause belongeth therefore seeing it is payed to some immediately after their death it is likewise to all That manie dyed not receiuing the promises is partelie vnderstoode of the promises of the lande of Canaan partelye of the full fruition and perfection of rewarde which to all men is denyed before the laste iudgement and so no inequalitie or vniustice vnto any Whether since Christ all goe straight to heauen They that liue vnto Christe dye vnto him and being disolued are with him The soules of the faithfull and the repentant are where Christ is as hee prayeth â—oan 17. so hee saith to the theefe no perfecte iuste â—an but a sinner repentaunt This day thou shalt â—ee with mee in Paradise Luke 23. And Saincte Pâ—ule desireth to bee dissolued and to bee with Christ. To leaue his iugling of seeing Christes godheades glorie and manhoodes glorie whereof I speake no worde hee confesseth the example of Sainct Paul declareth that a perâ—ect iust man goeth straight to Christ Likewise the example if the theefe declareth that a penitent sinner goeth straight to Christ if either his penaunce bee full and perfect or his pardon which is a remission of his penance be plenarie By this you perceiue that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory and not for repentaunce of the hearte and true conuersion vnto GOD But there is a plenarie pardon and satisfaction for all sinnes giuen to euerie penitent sinner therefore euery penitent sinner goeth streight to Christ whom we knowe and beleeue to be in heauen The minor is proued by sainct Iohn 1. Iohn 2. Iesus Christ is our aduocate and propitiation for our sinnes The bloude of Iesus Christe doth purge vs from all sinnes Secondly hee saith I allude to a place Romans 14. wee liue to our Lorde and wee die to our Lord whereby nothing else is ment but that hee is our iudge in life and death A bare exposition if wee haue no more comforte by liuing to the Lorde then that hee shall bee our iudge at our death Howe be it I grounde not myne argument onelye of that phrase to controll Augustines exposition of them that die in the Lorde Apoca. 14. for martyrs onely as you slaunder mee but compare other places of the faithfull that are asleepe in Christ 1. Corin. 15. And they that are deade in Christ 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the deade that dye in the Lorde that text cannot bee restrained onely to the blessednesse of martyrs but extendeth to the happinesse of all that are deade in the Lorde which are all the faithfull But the circumstance of the place saith Bristowe giueth it to bee meant of martyrs I aunswere there is no circumstance that can proue it to bee spoken onely of Martyrs seeing the argument of their blessednesse is dying in the Lorde whiche is common to all the faithfull therefore blessednesse also and that is the iudgement of S. Augustine de ciu dei lib. 20 Cap. 9. whatsoeuer Allen or you prate to the contrarie For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus vpon it Reg. nat itaque The Church therefore nowe first reineth with Christ in the lyuing and in the deade For therefore as the Apostle saith Christ dyed that he shoulde be Lorde ouer the liuing and ouer the deade But therefore he named onely the soules of the Martyrs because they as the chiefe reigne being deade which vnto death striued for the truthe But by a part we vnderstand the whole euen the rest that are deade pertaining to the Church which is the kingdom of Christ. Whether that iudgement may stande with Purgatorie My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting which in
I haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places Where I saide it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body or whether Christ haue any more bodies It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church but I pardon Bristowes ignorance and answere him that the sacrament is neither his naturall nor his mysticall body in proper speeche But secundum quendam modum as Aug. saith after a certain manner both And I read in Theodoret of a third body which the sacrament is De typico symbolicoque corpore a typicall or sacramentall body The place of Augustine in Psalm 58. with the cauillation of Adoration which Bristowe maketh is examined in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander Lib. 6. Cap. 2. The place of Augustine which I translated worde for worde and faithfully gaue the sense thereof as euerie man may see that readeth it Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth setting the carte before the horse in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation speaking of signes namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament Sed quia haec c. But because these thinges are knowen to men because they are done by men they may haue honour as religious things but wonder as miracles they cannot haue Whereof if he had known the carnal presence change of the bread such as the papistes speake of he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature which they are constrained to faine although no man can see them wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere Lib. 2. Cap. 4â— And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation saith Bristowe because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter before the last councell of Trent you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. â—2 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 6 About the sacrament of penance Absolution About the sacrament of penance the Popish Church saith foure thinges first that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away but one houres torment in Purgatorie as the master of the sentences teacheth is not taken away therby and Allen confesseth Bristowe saith it auaileth to take away the torments of hell But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to Gods ministers for absolution giueth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christes office in earth both for pardoning and punishing of sinne that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bristowe and himselfe and left naked in this place as almost in all places by Bristowe who would seeme to take vpon him his defence The second thing is temporall debt remaining after absolution Touching this matter I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron that they were signes of things to come not punishments of Gods displeasure Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristowe complayneth of my synceritie and rehearseth the wordes before When it is said to them that they should be gathered to their people It is manifest that they be not in the wrath of God which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie Thereby it is manifest that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come not punishments of Gods indignation What want of synceritie is here except there be so great difference betweene indignation and displeasure But Bristowe cauilleth of the wrath that separateth for euer as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time Yet the scripture presseth where God saide you shall die because you did not beleeue me This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution wherof the question is but a fatherly correction to them and an example vnto other Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise then the punishment was that they should not enter into the earthly possession Likewise I reported that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc mer. ac rem Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after â—his adultery remitted was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge Bristowe asketh if it be no punishment because it is a scourge yes verily and whether it be not for sinne yes truly But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remaining after absolution when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement For I chastice not my childe that his punishment should satisfie any part of his fault but to keepe him in humility and feare for committing the like and for example to the rest of my family as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians shewing why death that came in by sinne stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme that they owe nothing neither eternally nor temporally for them if death in such be any temporall debt remaining after absolution when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment Bristow saith he speaketh of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe Allen of forgiuenesse in penance But he may not creepe out at that hole it is too straight for him Chrysostome speaketh generally wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment yea he saith Vbi gratia ibi venia where grace is there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse and where there is forgiuenesse there shal be no punishment neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word either of Iewe or Baptisme but of all Christians escaping by grace the wrath which the lawe worketh and beeing made heires of the promise by faith The third thing is satisfaction against which Bristow saith I alledged Chrysostome and Ambrose so fondly that the wordes which I alledge will declare Chrysost. De Compunct Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit c. God
olde Fathers in their Apologies declare whatsoeuer was done in their assemblies As for oblations for the dead that Tertullian speaketh of cannot be proued to haue beene vsed at the communion but rather at the buriall of the dead But Arnobius saith Bristow about the very same time as a witnes to the contrarie complayning that the connenticle houses of the Christians were pulled downe by the Paganes in which God is prayed vnto peace pardon is asked for al men for the Magistrates for friends for enemies for the liuing and for the dead Such a saying there is in Arnobius Lib. 4. Con. gra I confesse but how proueth Bristowe that he was about the time of Iustinus or Tertullian when he confesseth it was 300 yeares since Christians were named Lib. 1 and vnder Dioclesian he florished saieth Hierome which was sixe or seuen score yeres after Tertullian the later of the two who florished vnder Seuerus The olde liturgie of the Greeke Church in Epiphanius time had a memorie of the dead but seeing it was an oblation for the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles c. in the first institution thereof it could be but an offering of thankes giuing although Epiphanius expounded it after the errour of this time to be a prayer for the sinner a separation of Christ from the order of men This is the effect of that I saide Bristowe saith I am deceiued by thinking it is but one memorie whereof Epiphanius speaketh and sendeth me to the countefeit liturgies of Saint Iames Chrysostome and Basil which were written long after their age according as well to the error of the time in which they were writtē as in some expressing the name of the Emperour and Bishop in whose time they were written Also he sendeth me to diuers places of S. Augustine but which I knowe not for the place Encherid C. 110. Dulci q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed which he saith for the very good are thankesgiuing for them that were not very ill asking of mercie for the verie ill no helpe but a comfort of the liuing Chrysostome also speaketh of a generall memorie of all that were departed instituted by the Apostles Ad Philip. hom 3. in which if there had bene an expresse forme of prayer for the dead he needed not of that memorie to haue proued prayer to be profitable to the dead The place of Origen he mangleth euen as his Maister Allen doth but he more vsually suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together without preiudice of his interlacing In Iob lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth louing but one life and not hoping for any other after this But now doe we not celebrate the day of natiuitie seeing it is the entrance of sorowes tēptations but we celebrate the day of death as that which is the putting away of al sorowes the escaping of al tēptations We celebrate the day of death because they doe not die that seeme to die Therfore also do we make memories of the Saints deuoutly kepe the memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith as much reioycing in their rest as desiring also for our selues a godly finishing in faith So therfore we do not celebrate the day of natiuitie because they which die shall liue perpetually And thus we celebrate it calling together the deuoute men with the Priestes the faithfull with the Cleargie inuiting also the needie and poore filling the fatherlesse and widowes with foode that our festiuitie may be done in remembrance of the rest which is vnto the soules departed whose memorie we celebrate and may be made of vs a sauour of sweetenesse in the sight of the eternal God First concerning my translation Bristowe will haue Religiosos to signifie Monkes as though none were deuout but they or as though the Church in Origens time were so full of Monkes as it was afterward Secondly he saith that death is a putting away of the sorowes of this life only where Origen saith of all and it were small cause of reioysing to put off the small sorrowes of this life if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatorie Againe the rest of the dead he will haue to be onely of their bodies That were a poore refrigerium if their soules should frie in Purgatorie The sauour of sweetenesse he wil not haue to be a sacrifice of thankesgiuing but a worke meritorious as though it was a worke meritorious that Noe offered cleane beastes after the floode when the text saith the Lorde smelled a sweete sauour Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thankesgiuing for his deliueraunce The like ignorance he saith I shewe to thinke that memorie for one cannot be a prayer for him As S. Paule to the Colloss Remember my giues and to the Hebrues Remember them that are in giues c. But where did I say so ignorantly that prayer may not be ioyned with remembrance For I trust Bristow is not so brutish to say that all memorie is a prayer But how skilfull is he to compare the memorie of imprisonment which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned with the memorie of rest which beeing obteined what should we pray for As for the wordes in S. Iames his Masse which was written by some Sir Iames many hundreth yeares after Origens death I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude vnto them Where Cyprian saith that Victor deserued not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests I shewed by diuerse good reasons that he meaneth not of prayer for him but such as was of thankesgiuing for the dead and for the like godly departure of the faithfull liuing For his offence in making a Clarke executor was not to be punished with eternall torments wherto Bristow answereth by telling of three things done in their Masse which he saith were done in Cyprians time but that is the matter in controuersie my reasons alledged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Councells at once the Councell of Carthage the 4 Cap. 95. the Councell of Vase which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the deade which they had bequeathed to the vse of the poore Allen saith to excommunicate them that hinder the oblations for the deade Now commeth Bristowe and saith it is but meere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the deade oblations for the deade because Cyprian saith there should be no offering for Victor I haue shewed Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thankesgiuing and this discipline was not to cutt him from the Church but an admonition to other As for the other Councells of Toledo 11. Bracharense with this of Carthage and Vase I haue answered Pur. 426. against which Bristowe here saith nothing but repeateth them with his vsuall interlardings The Councell Bracharense which I twise promised to shewe
the wordes in such order as they shoulde giue no manifest occasion of heresie by disordering them The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite the truest English were make this thing The fullest doe and make this thing The common Bible readeth in Saint Luke this doe In saint Paul This doe yee And that which is most abhominable of all in the homily of the sacrament it is translated doe ye thus This great abhomination if in any booke it bee so founde is but the Printers faulte although in sense there bee no great difference But seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and facere signifieth to doe as well as to make what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do As for Sanders fullest translation by doing and making is most absurde For when a word hath two significations no wise translator will render them both but onely that which is most proper for the place and doing is here more proper then making For though it sounde not absurdly in Sanders blasphemous eares when hee saieth doe this is all one as if he had said make this my body yet that the body of Christ should be properly said to be made by meÌ„ which was once made in the wombe of the virgin by the holy ghost in all godly mens minds it is both absurde and blasphemous And that the word facite is to be translated by doing and not by making it is euident by this that S. Paule referreth it to the whole action of the supper 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This doe as often as you shall drinke it in my remembrance c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio Quòd si à domino praecipitur ab apostolo eius hoc idem coÌ„firmatur traditur vt quotiesâ—unque biberimus in commemorationeÌ„ domini hoc faciamus quod facit dominus inuenimur non obseruari à nobiâ— quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus Et calicem pari ratione miscentes à diuino magisterio non recedamus If then it be commanded by the Lord the same thing is confirmed and deliuered by his Apostle that so often as we drinke we should doe this thing in remembrance of our Lord which our Lord himself did we are found that we do not obserue that which is commanded except we also doe the same thinges which our Lord did And ministring the cuppe after the same manner we depart not from his diuine teaching Last of all Heskins the papist and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing it is without all shadowe of reason for by This what can be vnderstood but this thinge And seing our English Pronown This doth aptly answere the Greeke pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what neede is it to adde the worde Thing which is not expressed either in the Greeke or in the Latine The sixt falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke and Saint Paul Luke 22. 1. Corinth 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationem The true English were For the remembrance of me or To the end I may be remembred The common bible turneth in the remembrance of me A strange quarell if a man could vnderstande it A thing sayth he may be donne best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him And may not a man be firste remembred and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him Or would Sander that Christ should not be thought vpon before he see the Masse cake lifted vp which he saith is made for the remembrance of him For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say When my body is made by the preist and lifted vp to be adored and all the people taught to bow downe to the body of Christ and to come with pure conscience to receiue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which sayth do and make this thing for the remembrance of me If this be the fulfilling of the scripture then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand yeares after Christ vntill eleuation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed And then is it not fulfilled in any priuate Masse where none of the people receiue nor yet be taught to receiue it Where he saith that Christ can not be remembred by eating of bread drinking of wine as the Sacramentaries would haue it so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth but by folowing of his crosse and death by penance by humilitie by confessing our finnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them I answere the Protestants require not only eating and drinking but preaching of the Lords death repentance fayth loue and reuerence in the receiuers as for the rest of popish trumpery when he can shewe that Christ required or the Apostels vsed we will gladly admit it In the meane time let the readers iudge how this later kind of remembrance can be learned out of the former which I haue set downe in his owne wordes of making lyfting adoring c. Beside these great corruptions there are other two small faults in S. Paul The first 1. Cor. 10. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned the partaking where it should be the communicating of the body bloud of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault because the Catholike Latine translation in one place calleth it participatio a partaking which is saith he when parte of a thing is taken and not the whole I thinke the translatour vsed the word of partaking because it is better knowen to English meÌ„ then the terme of communicating Especially seing the Apostle vseth both termes indifferently as one For in the next verse he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vulgar Latine is Omnes qui de vno pane participamus All wee which do partake of one breade And speaking of them which did eate the Sacrifices of Israelites of which euery one did not eate the whole he saide they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators of the altar And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators with diuels And returning to the Christians he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cannot partake of the table of the Lorde and of the table of diuels Wherefore in that translation there is neither falsification nor corruption great or small The last fault is 1. Cor. 10. in the place by mee cited wee all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should de Englished of the one bread For such strength hath the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometime the coÌ„mon bible turneth the Greeke article
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
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
prayer he citeth out of Cyrillus of Ierusalem That the holy ghost woulde make the breade the bodie of Christ and the wine the bloud of Christ in Cate. myst 5. But this is merueilous that Sander saith hee is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so great a mysterie if Christ had not commaunded him to make this thing But I replie if Christ had commaunded the priest to make his bodie what neede he desire another to make it And in that the holy ghost must make it it is certaine that Christ commaunded not the priest to make it Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite hee vrgeth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a making or working of holie thinges which may well stande with making and working of the sacrament although there bee no making of Christes hodie commaunded To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance But Irenaeus hath these wordes Quando mixtus calix c. when the Chalice mixed with water and the breade being broken taketh the worde of God then the Euâ—harist of the bodie and bloude of Christ is made It is made saieth Sander Yea verily but it is one thing to say the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloude is made another thing to say his naturall bodie is made But what is the Eucharist with you Papistes the verie bodie and bloude of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus wordes must be thiâ— the verie bodie and bloude of Christ of the verie body and bloud of Christ is made which were more then ridiculous Tertullian against Marcion saith lib. 4. Acceptum panem c. The breade which he had taken and distributed to his disciples hee made it his owne bodie Loe saith Sander he made the breade his bodie Yea sir but within six wordes following he sheweth howe breade was called his bodie namely because it was a figure of his bodie Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init saith Cap. 9. Sacramentum c. This sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the worde of Christ. And hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est This thing which we make is the bodie taken of the virgine But let Ambrose expounde himselfe in the words following soone after vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo Carnis illius sacramentum est c. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried wherefore it is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe ciâ—eth out This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloude before consecratino it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloude Likewise when Hierom in Ep. ad Hel. saith that Priestes doe make the bodie of Christ with their holy mouth hee meaneth the sacrament of his bodie as he saith immediately after â—hat we are become Christians by them meaning by the â—acrament of baptisme ministred by them Against Iouinian lib. 2. hee saith that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui in token of his bloude and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium quod in typo suae passiâ—nis expressit the mysterie which he expressed in the token of hâ—â— passion Out of Chrysostome are cited diuerse places al which are rather against Sanders making then for it as these The priestes make the oblation which Christ gaue to his disciples in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament vnproperly called of the old writers an oblation or sacrifice Againe The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest de sacer lib. 3. Againe Non homo est qui corpus c. It is not a man which maketh the bodie and bloude of Christ but the same Christ which was crucified for vs c. Yet Sander saith Christ saying Hoc facite commaunded men to make his bodie Aug. Cont. Faust Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our breade chalice is made mysticall vnto vs not borne made I say Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing I deny the argument especially vnderstanding this thing for the naturall bodie of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith Our Lorde doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe of his bodie Wherefore if hoc facite be make that thing which Christ gaue it is make a signe of his bodie The rest of the authorities of Theophilact Damascene Euthymius Anselmus c. I will not stande to rehearse because they being late writers speake often more neere vnto the Popish heresies And some of them were ranke papists yet in this matter for the signification of hoc facite make this thing not one of them speaketh directly as Sander defendeth But that the olde writers vse often the worde of making the bodie of Christ the sacrament c. It proueth not that they vnderstoode facere in Christs wordes to make one substance of another although by doing as Christ commaunded such a bodie as he spake of and such a sacrament was made CAP. XIIII What these wordes doe signifie For the remembrance of me and that they much helpe to prooue Christes reall presence vnder the formes of breade and wine To the obiection that the remembrance of a man differeth from the man himself Sander answereth that Christ said not onely do this but also make this thing because facere signifieth both to doe and to make and the remeÌ„brance of Christ is the shewing of his death as S. Paul teacheth by facte and by making Christs bodie vnder diuerse kinds to shew the separation of the bodie from the soule the breaking and eating of it in signe sheweth the breaking of it on the crosse c. To this I reply that facere can haue but one signification at one time and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul as Sand also confesseth to shew the Lords death which is by doing not by making except you meane the making of the sacrament hoc facite is still do this thing In deede the verie ministratioÌ„ of the sacrament according to Christs in stitutioÌ„ is a preaching of the Lords death but it followeth not therof that the Lord is present whom the Apostle by implication saith to be absent for he addeth vntill he come which were not properly saide if in person he were present but rather vntill he be seene which is there present inuisible To come is to remoue from one place to another place where the remouer was not before he came But Sander saith the presence of the benefactor is the best meane to make his good deede remembred as the scarre in a mans face being seene is the best remembraÌ„ce of his fighting for his friends defence I haue often shewed the vanitie of this kinde of reasoning by which it shoulde followe that
did signifie and exhibit euen as the sacrament of his supper doth vnto vs. I say marke Master Doctor Sander you that are so great a Grammarian and consider whether Ista commemoratio in the last sentence be not the same that it is in the first And marke whether ille and iste That and this can be referred to one and the same commemoration But Augustine or Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum declareth how the sacrament is a remembrance of Christâ— in rehearsall of which saying Sander playeth the same part that hee did before that is hee omitteth the one halfe of the discourse which maketh altogether against transubstantiation Firmissimè â—ene c. Most stedfastly beleeue thou and nothing doubt that the onely begotten sonne God the worde being made fleshe hath offred himselfe for vs to bee a sacrifice and oblation of sweete sauour vnto GOD to whome with the father and the holy ghost by the Patriarches Prophetes priests in time of the old testament beasts were sacrificed and to whom now that is in time of the new testament with the father and the holy Ghost with whom he hath one diuinitie the holy Catholike Church thoroughout the whole worlde ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of breade and wine in faith and charitie For in those carnall sacrifices there was a figuring of the fleshe of Christe which hee himselfe beeing without sinne should offer for our sinnes and of his bloude which hee should shedde for the remission of our sinnes now beginneth Sander But in this sacrifice there is thaÌ„ksâ—iuing and a coÌ„memoration of the flesh of Christ which â—e offered for vs and of his bloude which the same God â—id shedde for vs. Therefore in those sacrifices it was fiâ—uratiuely signified what should be giuen vs But in this â—acrifice it is euidently shewed what hath nowe beene â—iuen vs in these sacrifices it was before hande shewed â—hat the sonne of God shoulde bee afterwarde killed for â—icked men but in this he is alreadie shewed to haue â—eene alreadie killed for wicked men That Sander oâ—itteth a sentence which is not materiall I will not â—uarrell with him But nowe we must marke saith he the â—ordes of Fulgentius of the olde sacrifices figuratè signiâ—â—cabatur it was figuratiuely signified by the newe sacriâ—ice euidenter ostenditur it is euidently shewed If wee had â—ot Christes bodie present the old shadows would shew â—is death better theÌ„ bread wine flesh would shew flesh â—nd bloud would shew bloud and killing would shew â—illing In deede it is good to marke the writers wordes Shall we then skippe ouer the authors wordes which calleth this newe sacrifice whereof he speaketh so much sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of breade and wine Therefore when he saith In this sacrifice I aske what sacrifice he telleth me in the sacrifice of bread and wine is euidently shewed what is alreadie giuen vs You see Fulgentius meaneth euident shewing otherwise then Sander doth which thinketh it cannot be by breade and wine And as to Sanders reason that flesh sheweth flesh more euidently then breade I answere that Fulgentius compareth not so much the euidence of the signes as the difference of the times which then was to come nowe is past concerning the passion of Christ. Although that which is shewed to be perfourmed already is more euidentlie shewed then that which is darkely promised to be perfourmed hereafter And the doctrine of the Gospell in preaching Christes death is a more cleere and euident demonstration of his benefites then the doctrine of the sacrifices was But Sander compareth the flesh of the olde sacrifices and the breade of the Lordes supper as though it were none otherwise shewed to bee the remembrance of Christes death in the Church of Christ then it is in their popish masse whereas Fulgentius speaketh not of the bare ceremonie of the Sacrament but of the Sacrament with the doctrine there vnto belonging which is tence times a more euident shewing of Christes death then the olde sacrifices were Otherwise he might say that circumcision was a more euident shewing of mortification and regeneration then baptisme because that which was done in the member naturally made for generation did more euidently shewe those mysteries then dipping or sprinkling of water But as their ceremonies were more sensible demonstrations so the doctrine of our sacraments is wonderfully more cleere and euident Finally seeing this writer entendeth to teach Peter the Deacon most plainely why doth he call the sacrameâ—â— the sacrifice of breade and wine if there be no breade and wine in that holy office or seruice for so hee taketh the worde Sacrifice and not properly as his whole exposition doeth shewe For if he had meant a popish reall presence why doth hee not once name any thing sounding there to if hee had meant a propitiatorie sacrifice why doth he so manifestly distinguish it from the sacrifice of Christ and place it onely in thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christ crucified Verily this place whether it was written by Augustine or Fulgentius it is vtter enimie to transubstantiation and the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse But what neede I bring the fathers one by one saith Sander sith the whole seconde Councell of Nice doubted not to say A worshipfull Councell of vnlearned Idolaters And what say they Nemo sanctorum c. None of the holy Apostles which are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious fathers hath said our vnbloudy sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be an image of that bodie If this Councell say true that none of the Apostles haue so said then Sander is condemned by this Councell for falsifying the Scripture Heb. 10. when vnder colour of the Apostles wordes he affirmeth the sacrament not to be a shadowe of thinges to come but to be the image of the thing it selfe Lib. 3. Cap. 10. But that all these fathers do lie when they say none of our fathers haue said the sacrifice to be an image of his bodie it might be proued by diuerse ancient witnesses among which I will name Ambrose Offici lib. 1. ca. 1. who speaking of the sacrament which he calleth the sacrifice wherein Christ is offered saieth Hîc in imagine ibi in veritate heere in an image there hee is offered in trueth where as an aduocate hee maketh intercession with the father for vs. In this saying what is the image but the sacrament and whereof is it an Image of his bodie where the image is also perfectly distinguished from the truth Also Theodoret Dialog calleth the sacrament an image oporâ—es imaginis esse exemplar archeâ—ypum The chiefe paterne must bee an example of the image meaning by the paterne Christ by the image the sacrament of his supper Finally to the authoritie of this seconde Nicen councell I oppose the Ephesine Councell which determined against images and affirmed the Sacrament of
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which