to be beleeued on euen as God And where the Apostle saith that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood he meaneth not that we must beleue in the blood of Christ as it is a creature but that the death and blood-shedding of Christ is the meane of our reconciliation vnto God But the Nicene Creede Hieronyme contra Lucif vse the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam to beleeue in the Church I answere they meane no more thereby then they which vse the distinction Credere in Deum Credere Deo Credere Deum which Bristowe saith hath deceiued me Augustine as Bristowe confesseth maketh it proper to God that we beleeue in him We beleeue not in Peter we beleeue not in Paule In Iohn 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creede or Hieronyme contrary thereto that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church but in God only Therfore although they speak otherwise then Augustine they meane not otherwise then he Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede writeth both plainly and effectually Sequitur namque post c. For it followeth after this saying The holy Catholique Church the remission of sinnes the resurrection of the bodie he saith not in the holy Catholique Church in the remission of sinnes in the resurrection of the fleshe For if he had added the preposition In the sense should haue bene made one and the same with the former articles But euen in those termes truly where faith is ordered of the diuinitie it is saide in God the father and in Christ his sonne and in the holy Ghost But in the rest where the speach is not of the Godhead but of creatures and the mysteries the preposition In is not added that it should be said we must beleeue in the holy Church but the holy Church not as God but as the Church gathered into God And that men should beleue that there is remission of sinnes not in the remission of sinnes that they should beleeue the resurrection of the body not in the resurrection of the body Therefore by this syllable of the Preposition the Creator is distinguished from the creatures and things diuine are separated from things humane Neuerthelesse Bristowe saith they beleue both in God in Christ and in his Saints and inuocate them all though not all alyke but then let him heare what Cyprian saith De duplici Martyrio Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the hope of his whole felicity Whervpon it followeth that they which beleeue in saints place some part of their hope of felicite in thē not in God alone by his iudgment by the iudgment of the Apostle also beleeue not in God Where I said if Saints also are to be inuocated then God alone knoweth not the heartes of all men and God onely is not to be worshipped and serued and Christ is not our onely Mediatour and Aduocate Bristowe calleth it iangling without allegations I supposed these principles had bene sufficiently knowen to euerie learned Papist without allegations but seeing Bristowe will not take knowledge of them because he knoweth not how to shift his handes of them For the first my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Salomon in his prayer sayth vnto God What prayers or supplications shal be made of any man or of all thy people Israel when euerie one shal knowe the plague in his own hart and stretche foorth his handes in this house Heare thou then in heauen in thy dwelling place and be merciful and doe and giue euery man according to all his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the harts of al the children of men For the second that God only is to be worshiped and serued it is the saying of our sauiour Christ Math. 4. Luk 4. Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue That Christe onely is our Mediator and Aduocate Saint Paule testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ in which place he speaketh of Prayer supplications intercessions c. to be made for all men And Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. If any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins But saith Brist as I say to Ambrose others whom I confesse to be of the true Church so must I saie it to Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. for inuocating the holy Angells But I finde not that Iohn did inuocate the holy Angels in that place although the seuen spirites from whom he wisheth grace should not be the holy Ghost but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost For he that prayeth that God will sende raine from heauen doth not inuocate heauen But I must saie the same to God him self for making an Angell to be worshiped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapiter where I haue told him mine answere likewise to the Angell Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saintes and to the 24. Seniors which had sweete odours that is prayers in bowles c. But there is no such neede the Angell Apoc. 8. representeth Christe the onely high priest that hath authoritie to stande at the altar in heauen and offer incense and to present the prayers of the Churche that they may be acceptable to God Heb. 13. The Elders are the Churche of God in the whole world whose prayers and supplications only our sauiour Christ maketh acceptable But it maketh nothing against our Mediatour to God saith Bristowe though we are and haue neuer so many Mediatours so that all make suite to God by him Then it maketh no matter howe many petie Gods we haue so one be principal as Plato taught Againe he saith it is nothing against God alone to be worshipped so that we worshippe none but for him If this were true it were lawfull to worship the Diuel because hee is Gods minister and hath great power vnder him yea our Sauiour Christ had not aunswered his temptation when he required to be worshipped as one that had all the glorie of the world committed by God to him to bestowe at his pleasure in saying it is written Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue Last of all he saith it is nothing against God aboue to know our harts so that all others knowe them by him But Salomon reasoneth that God onely is to be called vpon because he onely knoweth the heartes of all men And where findeth Bristowe that all others or any one by God knoweth the heartes of all men To conclude the worde onely excludeth no more with Bristowe then he list to admitte by his blinde distinctions which if they may be permitted against the plaine sense and wordes of the Scriptures nothing shal be
vnanswered GOD BE PRAYSED The cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie MAN HV what is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the breade which our Lorde hath giuen c. The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my breade and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you The promise Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gaue saying take eate this is my bodie which is giuen for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The breade which we breake is the communicating of the Lordes bodie The beliefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed and we beleeue it to be flesh in deede The custome of Heretikes Tertul. de resur car The contrarie part raiseth vp trouble by pretence of figures THese notes and sentences D. S. hath set before his booke as the pith and martowe of all his treatise In which as he pleaseth him self not a litle so he sheweth nothing but his ignorance vanitie and falshood His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrue wordes Man Hu which doe signifie This is a readie meate prepared without mans labor as euen the author of the booke of Wisedome expoūdeth it Which Sāder readeth interrogatiuely folowing the errour of some olde writers which could put no difference betweene the Hebrue and the Chaldee tongs For Man in Hebrewe signifieth not what neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so but Manna hu that is This is Manna that is to say a ready meate Againe he sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Apostles doctrine when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament which the Apostle plainely affirmeth to haue bene the same spirituall meate which the sacrament is to vs. 1. Cor. 10. His vanitie appeareth that when he can racke neuer a saying of the Prophetes to his purpose he dreameth of a prophecie in the Prouerbes of Salomon which booke was neuer accounted of wise men for propheticall but doctrinall and this pretended prophecie is an allegorical exhortation of wisdome to imbrace her doctrine and not a prophecie of Christ instituting his sacrament an inuiting of men in Salomons time and all times to studie wisedome and not a foreshewing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come In the words which he alledgeth for the promise of the sacrament is discouered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture to peruert the meaning of Christe which is of his passion vnto the institution of the sacrament thereof For the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6. 51. are these And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world These last words which I will giue Sander hath fraudulently omitted that this promise might seeme to be referred not vnto the passion of Christ in which he gaue his flesh for the life of the world but vnto the giuing of the sacrament of his flesh in his last supper In the title of performance he omitteth to shewe what Christ gaue when he saide This is my body that he might seeme to haue giuen nothing but his body whereas the Euangelistes teach that he brake and gaue the breade which he tooke affirming it to be his body The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not holde because he neither breaketh breade which he denieth to be in the sacrament nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lordes body which he alloweth to be receiued of the reprobate which haue no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament or outward signe to all men and giueth the heauenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament euen vnto wicked men The beleefe of the Church which Hilarie professeth Sander maintaineth not for Hilarie saith that we do truely eat the flesh of the body of Christ sub mysterio vnder a mysterie per hoc vnum erimus and by this we shal be one with him and the father which can not be vnderstoode of the Popish corporall receiuing Last of all he followeth the custome of heretikes which is to draw mens sayings inio a wrong meaning for Tertullian in the place by him alledged speaketh not of such heretikes as pretended a figure in the sacrament where none should be acknowledged but he him selfe by that the breade is a figure of the body of Christ proueth against Marcion the heretike that Christ had a true body ad Marc. lib. 4. To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine all honor praise and thankes be giuen for euer I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the vanitie or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle the forme whereof being so newe and strange that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ euery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe For vnto whom is all honor and glory dewe but vnto God himselfe Againe seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them or if he will comprehend them for that inseparable vnity which they haue with the godhead of Christ he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie that God the father and God the holy Ghost is with the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie and was crucified as well as God the Sonne Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle if he denie not honor glorie power and presence euery where vnto the Father and the holie Ghost yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne and God the Sonne with his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine For thus he writeth I adore thee my God and Lord really present vnder the formes of breade and wine To which also he saith And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it but vnto thee alone Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof but of thee seeing thou onely art a meete patron for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud I offer this poore mite c. By these wordes you see that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD nor Lorde but him that is really present vnder the formes of breade and wine except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one And consequently that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father and God
haue no more to say but it seemeth as though he would haue me â—harge the man or the time with more thaÌ„ I can manifestly proue But seing I quote no place for it he dare say I haue it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries As for the Centuries I dare say I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together or in partes But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most auncient writers my book of notes writteÌ„ with mine owne hande more then 15. yeares past The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium c. where he hath these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marriages are sinners by our maisters iudgement I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages but to wanton beholding of women And therefore I doe not precisely charge Iustinus And yet againe I say it seemeth that the Church in his time was in some error because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher that liued in a manner in the same time doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium a faire kinde of adultery Qui namque repudiauerit inquit c. For hee that shall forsake his wife saith Christ and marry another doth commit adulterie suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away whose flower of virginitie he hath defiled nor to goe vnto seconde marriages For he that depriueth him selfe of his former wife although after she is deade a diuorcement is made is a secrete and couered adulterer transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman and dissoluing fleshe from flesh the vnion of commixtion instituted for the participation of kinde and sexe c. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time because he writeth this in that Apologie which he made in defence of all Christians which it is not like he woulde present to the Emperor in the name of them all except he had written that which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time Concerning Hieronyme Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe not onelye against malicious enuiers but also towardes Godly Bishoppes and Christians Apol. ad Pammachium Where as I laye vnto Hierom two other perilous Assertions whereof the one tendeth to destroye the humanitie of Christ the other to giue diuinity to the martyrs where hee saith The soules of the martyrs follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth and thereof concludeth If the Lambe be euery where those also that are with the Lambe must bee beleeued to bee euerie where Bristowe aunswereth that the sainctes are not euerie â—here in personall presence How then But of such power 〈…〉 ey be that they heare their suters in all places at once and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heale helpe whom they will Euen 〈…〉 s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea 〈…〉 eth his suters in all places and in personall presence assi 〈…〉 ed Saint Stephen and whomsoeuer else hee will I say according also to his humanitie c. But what say you according to his humanitie is hee euerie where that is the question and not of his power in hearing suters or helping them If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie speake plainely and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare If you interprete euerie where for all power how can you giue all power to the soules of Martyrs which they ascribe onely to GOD and the Lambe Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vnto the soules of Saintes such power that they heare the suters in all places at once c Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing vnderstanding and helping For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once is a diuine priuiledge not communicable to any creature that is not GOD. The argument therefore of inuocation of sainctes whiche you acompte to bee so stronge without horrible blasphemie against the diuine nature can neuer bee defended The Sainctes followe the Lambe not to bee of diuine nature or equall power with him but to bee partakers of his glorie according to his grace and the measure and capacitie of nature created Touching praying to the Sonne and to the holy Ghoste Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the error of the Church in any thinge I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere That the Councell of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue decreed that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father which is no small error seeing that hereof it followeth that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost or to the blessed Trinitie What moued those fathers thus to decree I know not but certayne it is the decree is erronius and offensiue Bristowe cauelleth at my collections as vnnecessarie that no prayers may bee directed but to the father whereas my wordes haue relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off Also that the verie prayers at the altar may not be directed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost because for orders sake they are appointed to be directed to the father I say sauing the authoritie of the councell which appointeth them to be directed to the father alwaies they may not otherwise I doubt not but they may And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum Petrum diaconum that the prayers although they bee directed to the father yet are made to the holy Trinitie especially because of the conclusion which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same I must put him in remembraunce that in Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde c which is also sayde in his Masse both the prayers is directed to God the sonne yet no conclusion there is naming the father and the holy Ghost Let Bristow therefore choose whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage or else acknowledge that the Romishe Church doth erre in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost 5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time Inâ—ocentius him selfe Bishoppe of Rome with this error 〈…〉 at they did
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
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
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
Constantius after both his brethren were deade ruled both in the East and the West what thinke you was the vaunting multitude of the Arrian faction insulting against the true Christians calling them heretikes Homousians Athanasians c Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Arrianorum veneâ—â—â— non iam portiunculam quandam sed penè totum orbem contaminauerat adeâ—ut prope cunctis latini sermonis episcopis partim vi partim fraude deceptis caligo quaedam mentibus offunderetur The poyson of the Arrians had defiled not nowe a little portion but almost all the worlde insomuch that almost all the Bishops of the Latine speach partly by force partly by fraude being deceiued a certaine myst couered their minds You see what skill this proude censor hath of the hystorie of that time Last of all he saith I make a proper distribution the Popes of all ages to be theirs and yet the Apostles and doctors to be mine But he maketh an vnproper application of the name of Popes to the Bishops of Rome of al ages where as a great number of the most auncient were godly men and of true religion members of the same Church wherof the Apostles and Doctors were and not antichristian tyrants as the later sort of degenerated bishops haue shewed themselues to be I doe not meane to prosecute euery trifling matter after this manner but to let the reader see by these fewe what great pyth is in his marginall notes and friuolous quarels CAP. III. That he confesseth the foresaide true Church to haue made so playnely with vs in verie many of the same controuersies of this time that he is fayne to holde that the true Church may erre and also hath erred but not his Caluinicall Church I confesse indeede that the Popish Church holdeth some errors that were helde within the compasse of 600. yeares but them not verie many nor the greatest controuersies nor vniuersally helde in all that time but in the later part of it onely nor with such poyson of pernicious errors as they are now holdeÌ„ by the Papists Also I confesse that the true Church may erre and hath erred yea euen that Church whereof Caluin was a teacher and that Caluin himselfe in some things both might erre and did erre although Bristow like a scoffing parasite doth except the same But where he chargeth me to confesse sometime also the long continuing of the Church in incorruption thereby to conuince me of contradiction I answere if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for 600. yeares next after Christ hee lyeth in his throat I neuer confessed any such continuance If I had affirmed that it continned after the first planting in incorruption for a long season I might say without contradiction that afterward it was corrupted with diuers errors which I haue so proued that Bristowe himselfe cannot deny them But I must follow his sectioÌ„s of this Chapter The first part that the true Church may erre I confesse the true Church may erre The seconde part that the true Church did also erre and in the same poyntes as we doe nowe erre in 1. Where he chargeth them with many pointes together I confesse the true Church did also erre and in some of those pointes that you nowe erre in although they nothing so grosly as you Those many abuses and corruptioÌ„s which I confessed to haue entred into the Church immediatly after the Apostles time which the diuel planted as a preparatiue for Antichrist I did not meane to bee many pointes of Poperie and therefore are heere fraudulently foysted in to vrge my confession further then it stretcheth by my meaning By Antichrist in deed I meane the Pope as the chiefe head of that mis-shapen body to whome I confesse that the Arrian Sabellian Nestorian and al other old heresies were a preparatiue althogh he directly acknowledge theÌ„ not but hath his heresie or rather apostasie compacte of all errors in that he is an aduersarie both to the person and office of our sauior Christ. Particular errors that I confesse to haue beene taken of the Gentiles or heretikes he numbreth 8. The signe of the crosse from the Valentinians Oblations for the dayes of birth and death from the Gentiles prescripte times of fasting immoderate extolling of sole life in the ministers of the Church from the Montanistes Manichees Tacianistes Prayer for the dead of the Montanistes purgatorie fier from the Origenistes Hierom almost condemning of seconde mariages from Tertullian The name of sacrifice from the Gentiles Also in the later writers inuocation of sainctes prayers for the dead and diuerse superstitious and superfluous ceremonies confessed by me to be maintained 2 As touching Vigilantius and inuocation of Sainctes by it selfe I confesse that Ambrose Augustine and Hierom helde inuocation of Sainctes to bee lawfull which is an error 3 As touching Iouinian of fasting of Virginities merite of Votaries Mariage If Iouinian contemned Christian fastes he erred neyther doe we take his part therein nor yet in making mariage equall with virginitie in all respectes For the mariage of Votaries Bristowe vrgeth me with no confession but I charge him with a shameles falsification of my wordes which he pretendeth to rehearse as a great absurditie Purg. 402. We neither boast vpon Augustine nor Ambrose when they dissent from our doctrine Neither are ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius when they agree therewith But my wordes are these Seeing God himselfe is the father of that doctrine which wee haue receyued by his holy worde we neither boast vppon Augustine nor Ambrose when they dissent therefro neither are ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius when they agree therewith 4 As touching Ceremonies I confesse they had many superfluous Ceremonies yea such as the Papistes them selues haue not for the most parte 5 As touching Purgatorie and prayer for the dead I acknowledge that prayer for the dead is an auncient error the opinion of purgatory in the Latine church is not so olde by many hundred yeares in the Greke Church it was neuer receiued What he saith of particular Doctors and their particular times for it I say that most of the particular Doctors from the time of Montanus haue bene infected with the error of praying for the deade but none to bee shewed before him The time of the first Nicen Councell Bristow saith is inough for any Christian man Who euer hearde such a blockish reason If the Nicen Councel had decreed prayers for the dead to be vsed without the authoritie of the holy scriptures it had not bene inough for any Christian man to beleeue The Nicen Councel made the Bishop of Alexandria equal with the Bishop of Rome which the Papistes will not allowe cap. 6. The same councel decreed that men should stand and not kneele in publike prayers yet is no man bound to this decree neither doe the Papistes themselues obserue it Cap. 20.
my parish Church hee declareth that hee doth wilfully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clothes as though I denyed any thing that is comelye when I speake against superstition and couetuousnesse The seconde parte concerning the errors that hee layed cap. 4. to the fathers and not to vs. 1. Touching the heresies that were in their times He demaundeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies that were in the Apostles times and the same Church in three Arrian Emperors times with the heresie of Arrius I answere that I neuer charged either the Apostles or the faithfull members of the Church or the true Church it selfe with any heresies that were in their times But aunswering the demaunde Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath alwayes stoode still and stedfast while all congregations of heretikes haue decayed I say The true Church of Christ hath alwayes stoode stedfast and inseparable from Christe her heade when all heretikes haue beene and shall bee consounded although shee haue not alwayes florished in worldly peace For vntill the time of Constantine the great the Church had small reste And soone after vnder the Emperours Constantius Constano and Valens it was greatly infected with the heresie of Arrius Where Bristowe falsifieth my wordes reporting that I saye The true Church was infected c. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that professe Christianitie as when I saye the Church was persecuted by the heathen Emperours I meane all that woulde professe Christianitie among whiche were manye heretikes that suffered persecution also Lykewise when I say the Church was infected I meane the visible Church in whiche are alwayes manye hypocrites according to the parable of the nette and of the tares c. yea I doubt not but many of GODS electe were infected with that heresie in those times which afterwarde repented and returned to the knowledge of the trueth wherfore my meaning was nothing lesse then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxie and true profession with the heresie of Arrius or any other which it did openly detest and abhorre An other quarel he hath against me where I saide Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times In which place after I had shewed what corruption of doctrine had beene receiued of that greatest lights and pillers of the Church from which it was not like that most of the inferior members could bee free I conclude according to the demand which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelyhood wheÌ„ the true church did decaie that it decayed immediately after the Apostles times meaning as the demaunde serueth also to vnderstande the word of decaying when it began to decay not as Bristow cauilleth wheÌ„ it was vtterly decaied came to nothing for such decaying I vtterly deny that euer it was or euer shal be If we see some principall postes of an house begin to putrifie may wee not say this building doth decaye Or being asked when it decayed after it is come to a more ruinous state and yet standeth may wee not aunswere it decayed first when such a beame or post began to put rifie I doubt not but euery man of reasonable vnderstanding wil acknowledge how folish these cauils are which are taken of ambiguitie of words and misconstruing of phrases cleane contrarie to my meaning expressed in plaine euident tearmes and hundreth times at least in these my bookes namely that the Church although it be persecuted by tyrants assaulted by heretikes vndermined by hypocrites enuyed and maligned by the diuell himselfe yet the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it to roote it out of the worlde or to hinder the saluation of any one true member thereof Touching the errors of S. Cyprian S. Irenee S. Iustinus If these doctors haue erred saith Bristow in any thing yet this thing is notable that not so much as in any one of their errors they are of your side A notable matter in deede that we hold not so much as any one error which they did hold But you wil not say the contrary for shame but that we hold many truthes which they helde We resist you say their ful whole consent That is vtterly false you haue not their ful whole consent for any point of popery prayer for the deade is the oldest error you haue except the superstition of Angels and the pharisaicall doctrine of iustification Shew me the ful whole consent of al the fathers for it whose writings are extant shewe me Iustinus Irenaeus Origenes Cyprianus Clemens Alexandrinus or any within 200. yeares after Christ except Tertullian a Montanist that in his writings maintaineth prayer for the deade But you will tell vs whereto you papists ascribe infallible truth First to the canonical scriptures tradition of the Apostles to the decrees of Peter his chayre to the whole church to the conseÌ„t of fathers councels both generall and prouincial confirmed by Peters successor We know this wel inough but I doe rehearse it in your owne termes that it may appeare you are not ashamed to match diuerse autorities equal in truth infallible with the holy scriptures inspired of God that alone are able to instruct a man to saluation and prepare him to euerie good worke For these autorities you vrge not onely where they agree with the scriptures but also wher you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be vnperfect as that they haue omitted any thing needeful to saluation or the aduancement of Gods glorie in true religion The errors of the fathers we doe not reueale to their dishonour but to the honour of God Let God onely be true euery man a lyer yea Peter Peters successor a thousand times Whereas you take vpon you to mitigate the errors of the fathers named in the title you labour in 〈…〉 e we know they erred not of malice but being de 〈…〉 ued with similitude of trueth But where you say it 〈…〉 s no great matter for Irenaeus Papius and other to 〈…〉 ue erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts vntill the Church had condemned peraduenture that opinion in the heretiks called Mellenaries you shewe what certeintie of trueth you haue out of the scriptures yet you make it but a peraduenture that the Church hath condemned that error Last of all where you say in excuse of the error of Iustinus concerning angels that expresse mention is made Gen. 6. of the sinne of the Angels calling the translation of the septuaginta authenticall which translateth the Angels of God insteede of the sonnes of God you geue great cause of suspicion that you are not cleare of that error your selfe 3 Touching second mariages and S. Hierom. Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the 〈…〉 me of Iustinus was in some error about second marriâ—ges and diuorcement Bristowe is angrie that I
your doctrine because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures But the faithfull you thinke for all that were not so straite laced but beleeued them vppon their owne worde both Christ and his Apostles because of the spirite of trueth that he sent to them And God be thanked we as faithfull men acknowledge without controuersie the spirite of trueth in Christ and his Apostles But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely sayeth Bristow but also to his Church after them for euer We doubt not but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church but not in such full measure as to his Apostles And if he had how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite but by tryall of the scriptures which were vndoubtedly written by the same spirite Bristow saith the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church at all times for the same spirite then the Apostles He must first proue the spirite so giuen to the Church that shee can no more erre in her decrees then the Apostles could in their writings Secondly if that were proued the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations which all boast of the spirite of trueth as much as the true Church And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirite but trye the spirites whether they be of God we knowe none so sure a triall as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures whether it be a multitude of men or seueral persons of one age or another of one degree or other that offreth to teache any doctrine which he or they pretende to haue of the spirite of God Last of all where I sayde Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth and therefore I wâ—y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe Bristowe noteth in the margent It is pryde to follow the fathers and humilitie to condemne them Whereto I aunswere to boast of the fathers to maintaine an olde errour is stinking pryde and it is not against true humilitie to make fathers and mothers and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde reuealed in the holy scriptures The second parte Being tolde that the question betweene vs is not as he maeketh it of the Scriptures authoritie but of the meaning howe there likewise against all the expositors he maketh the same exception of onely scripture requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture When in all this Chapter you deny onely scripture to be of soueraine authoritie sufficiency and credite to teache vs all the will of God are you not impudent to saye the question is not of the authoritie of the Scriptures But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning and not of the authoritie Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood bâ— on our side or on the auncient doctors side for the meaning of the scripture What then I aunswere the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie where some of the doctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes This aunswere I trust will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie After this he sayeth I count my selfe and my companions happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the coÌ„mentaries of doctors but as he troweth not without the coÌ„mentaries of Caluine But herein as in all things almost he belyeth mee for I neuer spake word against the reading of the coÌ„mentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition without weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places Likewise where I compare the whole heape of superstition errour out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill Bristowe noteth that I make the doctors writings a dunghill Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors as the sweeping of a faire house is meete to be cast on a dunghill Let Bristowe or Allen if he list say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors And yet it followeth not that the doctors writings are a dunghill more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse blindnesse c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scriptures where I sayde wee shalbe neuer the more certeine of the trueth whether wee challenge or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding the scriptures to the doctors Bristowe aunswereth whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree shall bee euer most certaine of trueth which is inoughe though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning Wee are then much the neere when the question is of the scriptures meaning if by the consent of the doctors we cannot be certaine of the scriptures meaning And if that trueth as we beleeue that all trueth is in the scriptures howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures Where I aunswere that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite as the doctors had although wee agree not with them in all interpretations euen as Cyprian and Cornelius were both indued with Gods spirite although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures Bristowe replyeth that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè though explicitè hee were of an erronious iudgement And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring because hee qâ—eâ—ly continueth in vnitie with them and doth not obstinately holde his error against them But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs for neither will wee bee reformed by them neither woulde they be reformed by Aâ—rius Iouinianus c. whom he calleth our forefathers If you haue no greater diuersitie then this the case will be all one for neither woulde Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade of Catholikes in their time as wee can make in this time although they woulde not bee reformed by Aerius an heretike yet charitie moueth vs to thinke they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Catholike Where I conclude that the harde places of scripture are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier adding the ordinarie meanes of witt learning c. adding that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may eaâ—ie bee deceiued Bristowe noteth a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman ought to bee ignoraunt in the 〈…〉 riptures
by this argument The scripture testifieth that all which the Apostles taught was first taught of Christ himself before theÌ„ Heb. 2. but whatsoeuer Christ taught is written in the Gospel Luk. 1. Act. 5. Iohn 20. c. therefore whatsoeuer the Apâ—stles taught is written And therfore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition receiued by preaching iâ— bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures giuen by the same spirit The fourth text iâ— 2. Tim. 3. which I alledge in these words saith Bristow Purg. 410. All goodworkes are taught by the scriptures which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes First he taketh exception that these are not the wordes of S. Paul Indeede my wordes are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded vpon the scripture which Bristowe suppresseth But supposing that Saint Paul had saide so what a fonde reasoning is this saith Bristoâ— because one euidence proueth all therefore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely Sir if one euidence prooue all that which is not prooued by that euidence is not prooued at all But if to prooue that which is prooued alreadie by that one euidence you haue other good euidence no man letteth you to vse them Wherefore this is no fond kinde of resoning Maister Brâ—stow but such as the best Logicians do teach All good workes are taught by the scriptures therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures is no good worke But nowe S. Paul saith not that all good workes are taught by the scripture saith Bristowe Hee saith the scriptures are profitable he saith not are able or sufficient to teach all good works Againe he speaketh only of the worke of an Euangelist and not of all good workes To this I aunswere that immediately before Paul saide The scriptures are able to make Timothie wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesu but no man can bee wise vnto saluation but he that knoweth all good workes meete for a Christian man to doe therefore all good workes meete for a Christian man to do may be learned by the scripture And euen in this very text where he saith Al the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of trueth to disprouing of falshoode to correcting of vices to instructing in righteousnes that the man of God that is the Euangelist be perfect furnished to euerie good worke although you restraine euerie worke to the only worke of an Euangelist yet that I saide is necessarily concluded thereof For it is some part of an Euangelists worke to giue example in all good workes that are meet to be done by other men but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished c. therefore all good workes are taught by the scripture Againe when all the office of an Euangelist which consisteth in teaching disputing correcting instructing in righteousnes may be perfectly furnisht at the scriptures what can be more playne to prooue that nothing ought to bee taught for truth disprooued for error corrected for vice instructed for righteousnesse but that which is taught disproued corrected instructed out of the holy scriptures Seeing therfore that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead is not taught by the scripture it is no trueth To deny prayer to be profitable for the deade is not disproued by the scripture therefore it is no error To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture therfore it is no vice MeÌ„ are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead therefore it is no worke of righteousnes The 5. 6. texts I alledge together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures and trie the spirites to proue that the certeintie of trueth in vnderstanding the Scriptures is not to be had but by the spirite and the spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures Against this conference Bristow saieth Who euer alledged Scripture more blindly And why so I pray you because Christ saieth in the same place that Iohn did beare witnesse to the truth My workes doe beare witnesse of me Also My father who hath sent mee hee hath giuen witnesse of mee In dèed 〈◊〉 Bristowe could proue that Iohn Baptist Christes miracles or God his father did testifie any thing of him which was not before contained in the Scriptures neither had Christ giuen a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures neither is that sentence able to proue that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture But if the testimonie of Iohn of the workes of God the father do all confirme the Scriptures who euer alledged scripture more blindly then Bristow to proue that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the newe Testament the old when Christ sendeth the Iewes to the old Testament as a sufficient witnesse of him Concerning the triall of spirits Bristow biddeth me looke in the text by this we knowe a spirit of trueth a spirite of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles I like it very well For where shall wee heare the Apostles speaking but in their writings in the other holy writings according to which they spake all that they taught Wherfore here is no tryall of the spirites but by the scriptures And where he sayeth the Romanes doe moste manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles because no man can name that time the noueltie the seducer that they went after although it were true that no man could in any point shew as he sayeth yet the argument is naught seeing it is proued by the Apostles writings that they holde many things not onely beside but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles The 7. text iâ— Pur. 285. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes and a lanterne vnto our feere therefore wee will not walke in the darknesse of manâ— traditions The faithfull testimonie of Gods word only giueth true light vnto the eyes But the Prophet sayeth Bristow neither hath the worde only nor saith that Gods word is not but in writing for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles To the fiâ—st quarrell I aunswere that I alledge not the wordes of the Prophet but his meaning which Bristowe cannot denye to be the onely worde of God that giueth 〈…〉 ue light to the eyes That Gods worde is not but in 〈…〉 riting I neuer sayde or thought but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of Gods worde but in the Scripture I affirme 〈…〉 nd that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before conteined though not so clearely in the lawe 〈…〉 nd the Prophets Last of all you alledge and saye against Iudas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus saith Bristowe Pur. 210. In the law not so much â—s one pinne of the tabernacle was omitted lest any â—hing might be left to the will of man to deuise in the worship of God You shall not doe sayth the Lorde what seemeth good in your
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
rrow by his labour he might haue beene purged of so great crimes as are obiected by the Tabracenes whose so great so heynous wicked factes the examinatiō of the course of our councell hath found out that the saide persons hoped for patronage rather then iudgment and the aide of a defender rather then the iustice of an examiner For first of al how much he withstoode the whole congregatiō offering dayly diuers iniuries as one that mainteined the priuileges of the Romaine Church and that would be receiued into communion of vs whom thy holynes beleeuing that he had appealed which he was not able to proue had restored to the communion which neuerthelesse was not lawfull and thou maist know also better by the reading of the actes Notwithstanding holding a most painfull iudgment by the space of three dayes when being verie much troubled wee inquired of diuerse thinges obiected vnto him GOD the righteous iudge strong and long suffering to our great profite hath cutte off either the delayes of our fellowe Byshop Faustinus or the craftie shiftes of Appiarius himselfe by which hee went about to hide his filthinesse not to bee named For his more vile and stinking obstinacie being subdued by which he would haue ouerwhelmed so great and filthie myre with impudencie our GOD strayning his conscience and publishing euen vnto men the secrete crimes which he did alreadie condemne which were as it were wrapped close in his hearte sodainely this craftie denyer brake forth into confession of all the wicked factes that were obiected against him And at length of his owne accorde conuicted himselfe of all those incredible reproches and turned into mourning euen our hope by which wee both beleeued and wished that hee might haue beene purged of so shamefull blottes but that hee mitigated this our heauinesse with one onely comfort that both he discharged vs from the labour of longer inquirie and also prouided for his woundes such a medicine as it was although it were by vnwilling confession and his owne conscience striuing against it our Lorde and brother Therefore reseruing our dutie of due salutation wee earnestly desire you that henceforwarde you doe not easily admitte vnto your hearing such as come from hence nor that you wil any more receiue into communion those that are excommunicated by vs because your worship may easily perceiue that this matter is also defined in the Nicene Councell For although the prouision seeme to be there made of inferiour Clarkes or lay men yet howe much more woulde it that the same shoulde be obserued concerning Byshops that being suspended from the communion in their prouince they shoulde not seeme by your holynesse either ouerhastily or vnduely to be restored to the communion Also let your holynesse refuse the Iewde refuges or shiftes of Priestes and other clarkes as it is meete for you to do because that by no decree of the fathers this is taken away from the Church of Africa and the decrees of Nice haue most manifestly committed them whether they bee clarkes of inferior degree or whether they be Bishops themselues vnto their owne Metropolitanes For most wisely and iustly they foresawe that all businesses should be ended in their owne places where they began and that the grace of the holy ghost shoulde not be wanting to euery prouince whereby equitie by the priests of Christ might both be seene wisely also held most constantly especially because it is graunted to euerie man if he shal be offended with the iudgement of them that shall heare his cause to appeale to the Councels of his owne prouince or else to a generall councell Except peraduenture there be any man which beleeueth that our GOD can inspire the iustice of examination and triall into any one man whomsoeuer and doth denie the same to innumerable priestes gathered together in councell Or howe can the same iudgement giuen beyonde the sea be stedfast and sure vnto which the necessarie persons of witnesses either for infirmitie of sexe or of age or for many other letts that may happen cannot bee brought for that any iudges shoulde be sent as it were from the side of your holynesse we finde it decreed in no Synod of the fathers For that decree which you sent vnto vs long agoe by our saide fellowe Bishop Faustinus as a decree of the Nicene councell in the truer councell copies which are receiued of the Nicene councell being sent vnto vs out of the authenticall copie by holy Cyrillus our fellowe Byshop of the Church of Alexandria and by the worshipfull Atticus Byshop of Constantinople which also haue beene sent from vs before this time by Innocentius priest and Marcellus subdeacon by whom they were directed from them to vs vnto Bishoppe Bonifacius of worshipfull memorie your predecessour in which wee coulde finde no such matter Also your clarks as executors of your commaūdemēts neither send ye nor graunt yee to any that shall require them least we should seeme to bring the smokie pride of the world into the Church of Christ which to them that desire to see God sheweth forth the light of simplicitie and the day of humilitie for touching our brother Faustinus now that Appiarius a man to bee lamented is remoued out of the Church of Christ for his vnspeable wickednesse we are sure that sauing the honestie moderation of thy holinesse thy brotherly loue will not suffer him to remaine any longer in Africa And written with an other hande our Lord preserue your ho lynesse praying for vs in long life Lorde brother Thus haue I set downe the whole Epistle though it be somwhat long that the English reader may see and iudge of the whole matter in controuersie betweene the Bishops of Rome and all the bishops of all the countries of Africa which was the third part of the world and howe truely Bristow first denyeth the forgerie which was proued by copies sent from Alexandria Constantinople out of the authentical copie of the Councell of Nice Secondly that he saith the same matter in questiō for appeales was decreed by the councell of Sardica when this Epistle affirmeth y◠by no decrees of any Synod any such thing was appointed but the cleane contrary by the councell of Nice defined Thirdly where he saith those African fathers had smal cause to stand so much with the Popes in those appeales that they shew great cause Fourthly where Bristow saith that by this their doing nothing can be inferred against the Popes authoritie aboue prouinciall Councels more then against a generall Councels authoritie aboue a prouinciall when they shewe the last appeale to be permitted to any man that findeth himselfe grieued vnto the general councels Fiftly where he saith that popish kings bishops at this day stand with the Popes in the right of giuing benefices appeales c. with his owne good leaue wtout any preiudice to his superiority I aunswere the bishops of Africa wtout the Popes leaue against his wil decreed that whosoeuer did
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
the Church in the wildernes as though we were forbidden to seeâ—e her or else to acknowledge her to be where somtime she shold be In the 4 demand of rising after he would maintaine 2 arguments the first is this Our first auctors can not be named Ergo they were none but the Apostles This argument hath no consequens and yet the antecedent iâ— false For of many of your errors we name the auctors and of praier for the dead Montanus the heretike vntill you can name vs a Catholique that helde it which was more auncient then he and although you would cleare your selues of theft because you haue not stollen that article but receiued it yet seeing it came first from a theefe your possession can not be iust and therefore ye must restore it to the heathen from whence Montanus stoale it Where I brought example of the heretikes called Acephali and diuerse other Pur. 388. to proue that the first auctor of euery heresie can not be named Bristow saith that he findeth his name to haue ben Seuerus that they were but a peece of Eutyches as the Puritanes are of Caluin But when writers dout the common voice gaue them their name because their bead was not knowen the coniâ—cture of a name will not serue the turne If they had added nothing to Eutyches they should haue bene called Eutychians as for the cauill of Caluine and the Puritanes deserueth none aunswere More like are the friers obseruants and general Franciscanes to those headlesse heretikes the Eutychians But Bristowe being driuen from the auctor falleth to the beginning of an heresie which being shewed to haue bene later then Christ and his Apostles is indeede an vndoubted argument to reproue an heresie And the begining saith he is shewed by this that the primitiue name of ChristiaÌ„s would not serue them but they must haue new names to be called by By this demonstratine Logike none shill so â—ptly be proued heretikes as Monkes Friers Nunnes c who disdaining the primitiue name of Christians haue chosen to themselues newe names as Benedictines Franciscanes Iesuites c. Whereas the olde heretikes did not willingly chuse the names that they were called by but by like names reproched the true Catholikes which argueth that the new name except it be chosen by them â—elues is no good argument to conuince heretikes Bris. asketh if the Papists do acknowlege any founders of their faith but the Apostles of Christ yea verily the Pope the popish councel which haue giuen you new articles of faith that the Apostles neuer taught but yâ— contrary as transubstantiation coÌ„munion vnder one kind c. That Teâ—tul other latter writers do father praier for the dead vpon traditioÌ„ of the Apostles it is no warrant for vs seeing the doctrine therof is not found in all the holy canonicall scriptures but is contrary to the same Montanus is found to be the first that since Christ taught praier for the dead That transubstaÌ„tiation was lately decreed he answereth it was the name not the thing as Homousion was alwaies beleued euen before the Nicen Councell which first receiued that name A fit coÌ„parison but how can Brist say that traÌ„substaÌ„tiation was alwais beleued when the coÌ„mon opinioÌ„ almost of al the scholemen is that before the determination of the Laterane councel it was no heresie to hold impuratioÌ„ or adnihilation of the Elements and he himself confessed in the last Chapter that perfect transubstantiation was not decreed before the last Tridentine session The second argument is this your first auctors can be named after the beginning of the Churches rising with their newe opinions Ergo their opnions were heresies c. To this argument I answer denying the antecedent for we hold no new opinion but the foundation of the Prophetes and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone Where I take exceptions to Allens rule Pur. 413 Bristow expoundeth his meaning to be of such an opinion as is contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles and vpon his exposition not necessary vpon Allens wordes chargeth me with nugation or triseling in adding mine exception which is the same with his exposition I pray the reader vouchsafe to peruse the place and see if there be any droppe of shamefast bloud left in this blundering papist which blusheth not to scoffe at me for triselings when he doth nothing but cauil and trifle himself and that without al wit or reason truth or likelihoode In the 5. demand of contradiction of heresies in their first arising where I had shewed how some fewe plausible errors of praier for the dead to the dead Ar. 39 by litle and litle preuailed without any great contradiction mentioned in Histories Bristowe saith It is a fonde parte to tell why and how a thing was done which was neuer done For the Scripture Es. 62. and August Ep. 119. Cap. 19. affirme that there ne should be ne was any such silence in the true pastors c. I answere both the Scripture and the Doctor speake of silence which may bring present ouerthrowe of the Citie or damnation of the Citizens Otherwise the true pastors in Saint Augustines time not only in silence passed but by speache and writing allowed the error of communicating of infants and the necessity thereof as I haue shewed before And seeing prayer for the deade and to the deade by the holy Scriptures are conuinced to be errors it can be no iustifying of them to say no man preached against them at their first rising And seeing the Histories of the auncient time are very fewe and short it is more boldlie affirmed then soundly proued that no man preached against them Epiphanius doth not tell who preached against euery heresie at the first arising thereof And euen some of Origens heresies of which Bristowe taketh example slept almost 200. yeares in his bookes before they were openly contradicted in the daies of Hieronyme Ruffine and Augustine Touching that I alledge of the mystery of iniquity working in the Apostles time 2. Thess. 2. Bristowe chargeth me to say that the Church of Christ wrought this mystery of iniquity wherein he doth me open iniury for I knowe it was Satan which wrought it but yet in the Church where Antichrist should sitte and not without it He asketh whether my text say There was no preaching against it I answere my text saith it was a mystery not reuealed and therefore could not at the first be openly preached against But Antichrist being openly shewed was preached against by the two witnesses Apoc. 11. although he were not espied in the first mystery of iniquity yea when he was yet in fashioning he was preached against by Irenaeus Pollycrates and others Ar. 36. and in this book Cap. 9. The case of Cyprian and the Affricanes being true pastors and yet contradicting the truth and other true pastors denying that such as were baptised by heretikes were to be rebaptised I haue clearely
so openly nor abundantly spredde in so many Nations as it is now And therefore Augustine in the place by Bristowe quoted Coll. 3. Die c. reproueth as well the Romane as the Affricane Donatisme whereinto Bristowe manifestly incurreth when most impudently he affirmeth that the olde fathers in their Creede beleeuing one holy Catholique and Apostolique Church meant the Romane Church as though the vnity holynes vniuersality and Apostolique foundation of Christs Church were nothing but the Romish Church Where I proue that the Popish Church is not in euery part of the worlde and therefore cannot be called Catholique in that respect Bristowe saith it is iumpe the argument of Cresconius and referreth vs for the answere to Saint Augustine Conâ— Cresc Lib. 3. Cap. 63. but the aunswere is such as he durst not sett it downe For Augustine confesseth the Church is not called Catholique because it is euery where for it was not in all places in his time but because it is to be dilated into all parts of the world whereas the Donatists helde it to be only in Affrica as the Papists only in a peece of Europa And therfore it is false that Bristow saith both the interpretations of Catholique giuen by Saint Augustine De gen ad Lit. imperf Cap. 1. Because she is vniuersally perfect and because she is spredde ouer all the worlde agree to their mother Romish Babylon for she hath nothing perfect neither was she euer nor at this day is spreade ouer all the worlde no not whâ—re Christ is and hath long bene named in Grecia Macedonia Moscouia Armenia Persia Assyria A Ethiopia c. in most of which places are the Churches founded euen by the Apostles themselues and yet neuer subiect to the Romish faction It is also false that we renounce the latter for we communicate with the Church of all Nations that hath communion with Christ and farther the Catholique Church doth not extende As for the names of Church Catholique baptisme heretike schismatike which he saith our Apostasie hath changed into congregation vniuersall ablution or washing chuser and cutter it is a most grosse shamâ—lesse lie for although we may be hearde sometimes perhaps and not often to interprete the Latine and Greeke tearmes by English wordes yet all that heare vs. or reade our writinges can testifie that we most commonly and vsually yea daily and hourely vse the tearmes of Catholike Church and Baptisme Heretike or Schismatiâ—e as often as occasion serueth to speake of those matters As for the Greekish names of Priest and Bishop if they be vnderstoode for such ministers as Saint Paule meaneth by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we striue not for them But when priest is taken for a Popish sacrificer and Bishop for a Baptizer of belles c. we like the names no whit better then the thinges Otherwise it is not the â—â—unde of wordes that troubleth our eares but the pestilent poyson that is hidde vnder such tearmes which our heart abhorreth In the 7. demande of heretikes where he chargeth me to affirme that whosoeuer of true Christianâ— were called heretikes without doubt are heretikes in deede and therefore Aerus Iouinianus and Vigilantius so called and counted by true Christians were heretikes in deede Of Aerius there is no question but he was an heretike although not in that matter Bristowe meaneth The errour of Iouinian we defende not but Vigilantius although baited by Hierome was neuer generally condemned for an heretike Howbeit that which I spake but in deâ—ision and imitation of the Popish manner of reasoning Bristowe taketh it as though I had plainely affirmed such a principle which was farre from my purpose Hierome and Ruffine were both true Christians yet either chargeth the other with he resie in their heat And what wil Bristow say of the two general Councels of Constantinople the 6. Nicen the 2 Will he not say they consisted of true Christians Yet both theâ— doe call account and accuâ—se Pope Honorius for an Heretike Will Bristowe conclude that therefore he proued so in deede He dare not for his life Hierome chargeth Pope Liberius with subscription of heâ—esie in Caâ—al Liberatus accuseth Pope Vig 〈…〉 us of Eutychianisme Cap 22. Yet Pope Syluerius by his Epistle accuâ—seth his successor Pope Vigilius yet are Hierome Liberatus Syluerius commonly accounted for true Christians and as for Liberius Vigilius Bristow date not for both his eares say they were heretikes Where I saide the Deuill stirred vp tyrantes Heretikes Popes Saracenes and Turkes to destroy the Church Who saith Bristowe that counteth Popes to be heretikes would so deuide Verily he that counteth Popes to be in an higher degree of impietie then particular heretikes namely to be autors of Apostasie Antichristes Where I obiect against this Popishe rule that the true Christians were of the Arrians called heretikes Bristow asketh whether they were of the Arrians commonly called Heretikes Yea verily as commonly as we are of Papists Bristow saith if we should in our talke writing say heretikes simpliciter as they doe we could not be vnderstanded to speake of them Yes in deede as well as they among their owne are vnderstood to speake of vs. And what other thing is ment by the name of Papistes but heretikes and traitours Antichristians and Apostataes enimies to God their Prince their country In the 8. demande beside that which is confuted in answer to the 3 motiue he denieth Franciscanes Dominicanes c. to be sects because a sect importeth a diuisioÌ„ And iâ— there no diuision betweene secular and spiritual Nominal real one sect another S. Paul coÌ„plaineth that Christ was diuided wheÌ„ one said I hold of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas I of Christ. And howsoeuer you wil now extenuate your schoolebrals contrary sects ech hath contended against other as for the truth of Catholike religion against heresie as the Dominicanes Franciscans Scotists Thomistes that I speake nothing of the Guelphes Gibellines the firebrands of the world In the 9. demand of the conuersion of HeatheÌ„ nations if sufficeth not Bris. the we hold the same Gospel which is taught in the writings of the Apostles which conuerted the first of al Heathen nations that were conuerted to Christian faith except wecan proue that the same nations are stil of our religion But he asketh if we wil be tried by Affrike for example whose religion we know by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Augustine Optatus c. Or if we haue any better moniments of any nations religioÌ„ he biddeth me to name it and let vs trie it betweene vs. How often haue I named the holy Scriptures the best and the onely true moniment whereby we may trie what Gospell the Apostles preached and into what faith they baptised the nations And as for those whome you name for Affrike although they testifie of some corruptions receiued and allowed in their time yet I dare take
Marke in his greeke writing vseth that word Eppheta I answere more liuely to expresse the miracle of Christ yet doth he it not without interpretation Likewise Saint Iohn in his Apocalipse vseth Amen and Alleluia wordes whose signification was as commonly knowne to all Christians as their owne mother language What is this to iustifie the vse of that word in baptisme which neither Marke nor Iohn speake of But it was vsed in the time of Ambrose So were other needlesse matters yet was it vsed to them that vnderstoode the whole office or seruice of baptisme in latine Augustine saith it was not lawfull for any Barbarian or Latine man to translate the words Amen Alleluia which al nations do singe in the Psalmes into his owne language For thus he coteth De doct Chri. lib. 2. cap. 11. inter Epist. 174. but in neither of theÌ„ do I finde any such matter Certaine it is that Augustine doth giue the signification of them both in latine Of the Marcionistes I said they learned to giue womeÌ„ leaue to baptise Bristow saith we doe our selues therein by order of our booke as much as they doe but he is deceiued there is no permissioÌ„ in the booke for women to baptise Touching the necessitie of baptisme we haue spoken before cap. 6. Finallie I saide the Papistes are Pelagians for holding free will and merites of workes as they did not predessination and grace as S. Augustine did Bristow citeth Hierom. Cont. Pela saying that it was the heresie of the Manichees to take away free will So it was in deede to affirme that the wil of man was inforced or constreined But that the will of man is free from the thraldome of sinne and hath power to merite without grace or with grace more easily it was the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine in whole bookes written against theÌ„ doth declare But August Epist. 46. saith That by the grace of God a wicked man may be made a iust one and so may begin to haue good merites which God shal crown wheÌ„ the world shal be iudged I answere by merites he meaneth workes and not desertes for else how saith he elsewhere in Ps. 101. diuers places beside that God crowneth his giftes and not our merites where he vseth the name of merites for desertes where I saide the papistes colour Pelagianisme with their distinctioÌ„ De congruo condigno Bristow saith we do like hypocrites conceale before the people the distinction of merites before grace and after grace for they hold that a man cannot merite the grace of God De congruo without Gods healpe although they haue no resolute warrant to call the contrarie Pelagianisme or heresie And why haue you no warant for reare you should condeÌ„ne diuers of your cheife pillers the scholemeÌ„ for heretikes which hold contrary to that you hold and yet you all hold that a man may dispose him selfe vnto a certaine aptnes to receiue the grace of God by the power of his free will Where I said God is as much bound to congruitie as to condignitie Bristow saith I immagine that if God do not that which is coÌ„gruous he doth against coÌ„gruitie Now good sir saith he It is coÌ„grue to his mercie to saue the simple that are out of the Church which is not coÌ„gruus to his iustice But good sir I pray you dispute not so of congruine that you oppose Gods mercie to his iustice there is nothing congrue to hismercie which is not coÌ„grue to his iustice for vnto whoÌ„soeuer he wil shew mercie he hath receiued for them satisfaction to his iustice in the person of Christ yet Bristow hath another example for condignitie For God to saue al the world it is condigne to the merites of Christ yet he damneth innumerable because it is condigne to their owne merites By this it may be inferred that God yeeldeth not to the merites of Christ so much as they deserue because the merites of many men doe hinder as though the merites of al men do not deserue daÌ„nation of coÌ„dignitie then what cause is this why God giueth not to Christs merites so much as they are worthie to receiue because many deserue damnation This foolish sophistrie riseth by reasoning from possibilitie of Christes worthynesse to the acte of mens worthynesse But compare acte with acte and God saueth all his elect for the worthynesse of the merites of Christ by his mercie and damneth all the reprobate for the worthinesse of their sinne by his iustice of predestination denied by the papistes as it is defended by S. Augustine Bristow speaketh neuer a word In the 39. demaund which he calleth Inconfessed heretikes onely where I answering to the question of Allen Pur 421. 422. with an other question or demaunde why it was reueiled first to the Arrians in councell that the article of Christes descent into hell was meete to be added to the Creede which was not in anie symbole before Bristowe first surmising as his manner is that which was neuer thought of at last confesseth this article to be added in an Arrian Creede Theodor. Lib 2. cap. 21 affirming that it was before that in the Apostles Creede but thereof he bringeth no proofe nor witnesse The iudgement of the scriptures and not of mens opinions argueth heresies Let the writinges of the Apostles trie whether of vs is departed from the doctrine of the Apostles In the 40. demaunde which he termeth They neuer afore now Where I saide we agree with the most ancient fathers in the cheefe and most substantiall articles of faith Bristowe saith I confesse his purpose For Vigilantius Iouinianus c. did much more agree with them in such articles yet were not of their church could not be and would not be How proue you that Vigilantius was not of the Church or woulde not be although he dissented from Hierom As for Iouinian although we hold no part of his assertion in manner as he helde yet his error was not so great that he might not be saued with it Fewe of those fathers but had as great errors as that It seemeth you would haue no man to be of the ancient Church except he agree with the ancient fathers in al their errors if it be proued out of the holy scripture that Hierom erred in that wherein he dissented from Vigilantius why is heto be allowed in that error more then in other thinges wherein he and other of those antient fathers erred Where I doubt whether Apostolici in S. Bernardâ— time were slaundered Bristow saith it is a poore and fowle shifte because Bernard himselfe is witnes against them as though it were not possible that Bernard might be deceiued by missâ—information of them that enuied such kinde of men as they were Where I say it is certaine that Panperes de Lugduno were slaundered Bristow saith I proue it not They proue it themselues being now and long since openly knowne to haue continued in their vnitie from the time of
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
kept 350. yeres past was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity but only of the Papistes no more was any that followed at Constance Basil Trent nor yet that of Florence in which although there were some Grecians yet the councell of Basil was against it and many Orientall Churches that were neuer called to it neither was there any thing for transubstantiatioÌ„ or adoration therein agreed by the Grecians that were there For in the last session it is thus recorded Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis summus pontifex petiit vt de diuina panis transmutatione quae quidem quarta quaestis fuiâ— in Synodo ageretur At Graeci dixerunt se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae â—auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse cùm pro illa tantâ—m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit Which foure questions beeing dissolued the Pope desired that of the diuine transmutation of the bread which was the fourth matter in controuersie it might bee treated in the synode But the Grecians sayed that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental Church coulde handle none other question seeing the synode was called together for that only question of the proceeding of the holy Ghost Fourthly although Berengarius was condemned by three Popish councels and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures and the iudgement of all the auncient Church for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time the same being nowe taught in England is true doctrine and no heresie Wherefore none of the foure certeinties are certeine and true on Sanders side But he will examine vs what Gospell what Church what councels we haue First he saith we can bring no Gospel where it is writen This is the figure of my body Neither doe we affirme that it is onely a figure of his body nor denye that it is his body after a certeine manner as Augustine sayth And Sander will not deny but that it is a figure which were not true except it were proued out of the Gospell which speaking of the Cuppe sayth This is the newe Testament in my bloud And what Gospell doeth Sander bring saying This bread is turned into my body To the seconde demaunde I answere The primitiue Churche for sixe hundred yeares did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament as wee doe during which time as there was no controuersie so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine As there are many other articles agreed on both partes which were neuer decreed in generall Councels because there neuer was question about them But when the question did arise it was in the time of the prophecyed defection from Christ vnto Antichrist and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it neither yet can by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ and the tyrannie of heathen Princes which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie But the first sixe hundred yeares saith Sander make not for the Sacraments which is declared inuincibly by three meanes First diuerse fathers require vs instantly to beleeue these wordes This is my body c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense And yet no wise man will require vs to beleeue figuratiue wordes O shamelesse and senselesse heretike will not euery wise man require vs to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture Are not these wordes true although they be contrarie to naturall reason sense The rocke was Christ I am the true vine I am the doore c and if these wordes are true are they not to be beleeued of vs in their true meaning euen so these wordes This is my body are true in their meaning and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vnto them The seconde reason is that the same fathers teache expressely that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries which is a lowd lye vnderstanding it of popish adoration The third reason is because the fathers teache that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament But this is false for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ which is by his incarnation for our coniunction by the sacrament is neither naturall nor corporall but spirituall vnto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vs. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding the sixe hundred yeres make still for vs. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres sayeth Sander by the writings of the fathers of those times because none of them goeth about to prooue that the body of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie or haue vsed such wordes as the Sacramentaries do now vse If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely although his negatiues are not all true For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes the sacrament to be the very body of Christ Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament it argueth that none in their time did worship it seeing you Papistes confesse that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake if it be not consecrated and therefore teach men to worship it with this condition when they see it if it be consecrated Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie weâ— vse when we teache that it is a figure a token a representation a signification a similitude a symbole a type of the body and bloud of Christ and what wordes soeuer wee vse wee vtter none contrary to their meaning and teaching of the holy sacrament But saith Sander that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe it hindereth not the reall presence because signes instituted by Christ haue reall trueth in euery sacrament Neither doe wee say the contrarie but that the reall trueth of Christes body is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament of the supper euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vs in the sacrament of baptisme and yet we deny the breade which is the signe to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ euen as we deny the water which is likewise the signe to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost But the fathers saith Sander are not against the doctrine of the Papistes because no Papist findeth fault with them By the same reason he might proue that none of the Iurie which haue found a theefe guiltie did goe against him because the theefe challenged none of them And yet
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
but that I denie for the forme of bread is no secrete but a visible and naturall thing Wherefore the mysterie vnder which we truely take the flesh of Christ must be that secrete and wonderfull manner by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vnto vs. Thirdly he sayeth that worde Proprietie doeth signifie a person because Augustine saith Christ is a vine by similitude non per proprieâ—atem not by propertie where by propertie Augustine meaneth properly and not a person Wherefore Hilarie meaneth that the naturall propertie of incorporating that meate that is eaten in the Sacrament is a Sacramentoâ— holy signe of a perfect vnitie such as is made betweene the meate and the eater and not such an agreement only as is betweene friends that are of one mind Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie where he saith the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament interpreting property for person After he hath thus abused Hilarie he commeth to Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar knowne to the faithfull where it is shewed to her that in that sacrifice which he offereth her self is offered Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme betweene Christ and his father reprouing him that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie of the bakers making c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper by the Church in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum sigrâ—â—m The visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice which inuisible sacrifice is by him expounded to be mercie and charitie yelding vp of our selues vnto the obedience â—f God vnto which the reall presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 er necessarie nor at all required seeing he hath once 〈…〉 fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect for the reâ—emption of all the elect of God His allegorie of building as it is vaine and no arguâ—ent but of Sanders owne authoritie so I passe it ouer 〈◊〉 vnworthie any answere But I cannot passe ouer that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building he saith Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar c and there is no reason why wee â—ould be called his mysticall bodie or flesh of his flesh and bone 〈◊〉 his bone By which saying he denyeth all the Patriarks 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ flesh of his flesh â—nd bone of his bone But we knowe that by Christs inâ—arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud â—nto all his elect by his spirit they with vs and we with â—hem are all members of Christ flesh of his flesh and â—one of his bone without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament and this communication is sealed vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper Sander citeth Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyrill and Theodoret to prooue that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereunto we are ioyned and further vrging the similitude of mariage whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled not more grossely then filthily compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ vnto the acte of generation in marriage about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues Whereunto I answere shortly that we do acknowledge that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ which he tooke of our nature by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God which can be nothing else but his spirite although the same be assured vnto vs by faith our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God and especially by the supper of our Lorde but not onely thereby As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned which Sander requireth is no naturall presence in one proper place more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into euery one of our bodies then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper placeâ— heauen as Augustine affirmeth by his spirite wee are all brought vp vnto him as the Apostle saith Eph. 2. not â—e brought downe vnto vs. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vnto 〈◊〉 vnder asacrament he meaneth not of anie carrâ—ll manner of mixture but such as is sub Sacramento vnder a sacrament â—nd mysterie that is by the visible sacrament taught to bee truely but yet after a spirituall manner Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vs that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe not onely by loue but in deede No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe to bee carnall but onely spirituall For what madnesse were it to say that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ after a corporall manner To conclude Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words sense For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in noâ—is fiat nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi For as much as the mys 〈…〉 al blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vs if it selfe haue not Christes flesh corporally in it But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vs but the vertue of the mysticall blessing which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs. For thus he writeth against the Arrians Anfoâ—tesse putat ignotam nobis mys 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse Quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne â—â—poraliâ—er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vnto vs which when it is wrought in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs also corporally by communicating of the fleshe of Christ It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament that maketh Christe â—o dwell in vs corporallie and by naturall paticipation â—s hee saith afterwarde By which tearmes yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction but a true and vndoubted vniting of vs to the nature and bodie of Christ which is performed by the vertue of his
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
and thou standest by idle Thy garments are foule and thou carest not But if they are cleane then adore and receiue This adoration Sander would referre to the holy things but he cannot enforce it wee adore and communicate yet wee adore not the Sacrament Chrysostome in the same Homilie saith that we eate him which sitteth aboue which is worshipped of Angels c. by which it is euident that the presence of Christ in the mysteries is after a spirituall manner not that he is bodily present As for the eleuation and the things praised with an hymne that Dionysius speaketh although they prooue no adoration of the Sacrament yet I will not stande vpon them because it is cleare that Dionysius was a writer out of the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres that Sander hath bound himselfe vnto howsoeuer the Papistes impudently woulde affirme that he was Saint Paules scholler whose writinges were not heard of in the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite followeth Basil de spiritu sancto Cap 27. Inuocationis verba c. The words of inuocation vsed in the shewing of the breade of the Eucharistie and the cuppe of blessing which of the Saintes haue left in writing to vs In that place in deede Basil defendeth ceremonies receiued by tradition which are not contrarie to the worde of God among which he nameth the wordes of inuocation which wordes Sander will haue to be the order of saying Masse and prayers and yet after referreth to certeine wordes which the people aunswered when the Priest saide Holy thinges are for holy men One is holy saide they one is the Lorde one Iesus Christ in the glorie of GOD the father with the holy Ghost Amen But these are wordes of declaration who is holy not of inuocation Wherefore the wordes of inuocation were some prayer that was made for the worthie receiuing of the mysteries and not made to the mysteries as Sander imagineth And wheras vpon the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not onely grounde shewing of the mysteries readie to be receiued but also lifting vp of them it is a simple argument for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not so properly as he saith betoken a shewing by lifting vp as to ordeine to institute to appoint and so wee neede not vnderstand any shewing but an appointment or ordering of the bread and cuppe to be the Sacrament Passing ouer Maximus and Germanus two late writers concerning the shewing and eleuation of the mysteries vsed in their time I come to Eusebius Emissenus Hom. 5. in Pasc Cùm ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potúqâ— c. When thou commest vnto the reuerend altar to be refreshed with the wholesome meate and drinke Looke with faith vpon the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde take it in the hande of thy heart and especially receiue it with an inwarde swallowing This place being altogether of spirituall beholding honouring receiuing yet is not Sander ashamed to cite it for carnall presence and ad oration of the Sacrament But howe I pray you forsooth hee telleth vs where to haue it on the altar Naye sir faith respecteth not things that are visible therefore not the altar nor that is seene vpon it but him that is in heauen which is represented by that which is seene corporally Nowe seeing the beholding must bee with faith and the receiuing with the hande of the heart and inward swallowing who will graunt vnto Sander that the honouring must bee with outwarde reuerence to that which appeareth breade and wine but with inwarde and spirituall reuerence dewe to Christ which is in heauen But Sander hath a quarell against the English Homilies for translating altare the communion and salutari cibo potúqâ— spirituall meates I thinke the writer meant not to translate but to giue the sense but I know not what Sander meant in translating this place for that which Eusebius sayeth Cordis manususâ—ipe to giue none English at all but leaue it cleane out As for the saying of the receiuers Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe it hath beene shewed alreadie howe it was vnderstoode of Origen and may be saide of them that neuer meant to adore the Sacrament And whereas Sander sayeth none other Lorde entreth vnder the roofe of his mouth beside that breade I marueile whether he meane to teache vs that tectum is Latine for the roofe of a mans mouth whereas wee haue alwayes taken it for the roofe of an house Christe is sayde to enter vnder the roofe of our house figuratiuely when hee dwelleth in vs by faith spiritually As for eating vnder the roofe of our mouth it is a grosse imagination vnworthie of the maiestie of Christ. The last author is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mystag 5. who biddeth the communicants to take the king and the bodie of Christ in the hollow of the right hande saying Amen and to sanctifie their eyes therewith vsing all diligence that no crumme thereof perishe or fall away What needed that precept saith hee if it were common bread Verely I take it for a meere superstitious precept although it were giuen to young nouices newly admitted to the communion and yet it prooueth not the Popish reall presence vnlesse you thinke a legge or an arme falleth off if a crumme be lost What when a mouse eateth vp all in the Pixe And what can it be but the substance of breade which hath crummes that may fall from it Cyrillus in the same place sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer thou shalt leese it is manifest that in it thou hast lost as it were parte of thine owne bodie I thinke you will not say that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants that in leesing a crum they leese a parte of their bodies Hee meaneth therefore a spirituall reuerence to be giuen to the holy mysteries which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures Well after the communion of the bodie Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud bowing downe and saying in the manner of adoring worshipping Amen If he bad the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud he was no Papist though he bid them come bowing downe saying in worshipping Amen yet you finde not that he biddeth them bowe downe to the chalice or to adore that which is in it as you do We come to the communion with reuerent gesture and bowing downe yet we adore not the Sacrament But if hee meant adoring of the Sacrà ment why did he not bidde them bow downe and worship the bread as well as the cuppe Finally that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation it is plaine by his words in the same booke where hee sheweth that after the ministers of the church are sanctified by the spirituall hymnes that were song they besought their louing God to sende his holy spirit vpon the
The name of spirituall may be taken as many wayes at spiritus which is for God the holy ghost Christ Angels winde gifts spiritual the soule the imagination breath anger or punishment and many other waies Fulke So many waies of taking as you knowe yet you cannot tell any other then as Clemens and Hierom take it for that which hath not the substance but the grace and effect of Christ. Sander That which you bring out of Athanasius apperteineth to the Capernaits and to no man else Fulke Yes to as many as erre grossely like the Capernaites as you Papistes doc Harding The fathers vsed the wordes really substantially c. to put away al doubt of the being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries Iewel He diuineth what they meane before they speake Sander Nay because he is sure of their words he expoundeth their minde Fulke He is so sure of their wordes that he knoweth not where they are written nor you neither Being so often called for and so much bragged of bring them out for shame CAP. XIII Sander A place of Chrysostome expounded Iewel Chrysostom saith in the same homilie If Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentarie quarel Sander You proue a signe here but not that the trueth is absent from the signe Fulke The Sacrament is a signe ergo not the thing signified a relatis Sander The sacrifice of the new testament is the bodie of Christ this is the sacrifice of the newe testament therefore it is the bodie of Christ. Fulke The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing as prayer almes preaching vnto which is no reall presence required Your syllogisme is all of particulars make the maior vniuersall and the error is soone espied Euery Sacrifice of the newe Testament is the bodie of Christ. Sander Chrysostome there saith that Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus who denied Christes reall flesh and death are confounded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them Fulke Verie well as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure to the thing figured The SacrameÌ„t could not be a figure of Christs body except Christ had a bodie in deede For a voide thing that is a phantasme can haue no figure Sander Chrysostom saith it is euident by these mysteries that Christ is alreadie sacrificed which cannot be true if his reall flesh be not present of which point I haue spoken in my fift booke Cap. 1. Fulke And in the same place I haue aunswered the vanitie of your argument Iewell Master Harding knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries for it followeth Euen so in baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneration is a thing spirituall wherefore if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament hee must likewise force the same in the other Sander D. Harding brought that place onely to shewe that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present Fulke The place prooueth that the body of Christ is none otherwise present then regeneration in baptisme Sander In baptisme the grace of regeneration which is giuen is conteined and giuen when the worde commeth to the water Fulke The water is no subiect for the grace of God yet Chrysost saith not the grace but regeneratioÌ„ it self Nothing is borne againe but the partie baptized therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme CAP. XIIII Sander The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper Iewel Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme The fathers in the Councell of Nice bid vs thinke that the water is full of heauenly fire c. Basil the kingdome of heauen is set open Chrysostome God himself in baptisme by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose In the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard Let vs be washed in his bloud c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue that the power of God the heauenly fire the grace bloud of Christ is really present in baptisme Sander Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament except it be signified present in the wordes instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament or of necessitie be inferred vpon them Fulke Neither is all that really present which is affirmed of a Sacrament that is signified present in the words instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament As Christ saide This is my bodie so hee sayde This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud yet it followeth not that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe no nor in the bloud of Christ which he shedd for vs but is confirmed by it and signified by the other Sander Baptisme the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other Fulke If they had no differences they should be all one yet haue they not so many as you make But in the matter in question they haue like force to vnite vs to Christ and assure vs of eternall life which none can haue but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ or else what becoÌ„meth of them that are baptized and not admitted to the communion CAP. XV. Sander M. Iewel replyeth not wel touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell Harding We behold saith the Councel of Nice the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or laide on that holy table we receiue his precious bodie and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily in deede which is to say really Iewell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstall but deuised by M. Harding Sander It is founde in the actes of the Councell that are not all printed but they are extant in diuerse Libraries Fulke You name none where we should find them to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies Sander In many Latine printed bookes it is translated sâ—â—m situated or put Fulke The question is not what some Latine coppies haue but what is the originall Greeke Iewel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed needes sounde a reall presence Sander Can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Fulke A fit comparison betweene a capon and the lambe of God Iewel Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith and yet not really Sander The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table by faith but to be set or laide there Fulke How can the Councell saye We behold it set there but by faith Iewel S. Hierom saith as often as we enter into the sepulchre we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode yet he lay not there really Sander But he lay