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
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
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
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
of the condition of all infantes which is not chaunged by baptisme although sinne be not imputed vnto them Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme is abolished in baptisme what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of baptisme be angry with them that haue taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme is this no sinne But what infant can examine himselfe of this sinne And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will haue to examine himselfe As for the distinction of Votum explicitum implicitum he sendeth vs to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. c. For how can we be assured that children haue a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion Or how can it be proued That they haue any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infantes against all reason and without all scriptures wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable Last of all hee chargeth mee with falsification by adding because the councell of Trent saith that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis some times and in some places But I pray thee Bristowe what haue I falsified the councel of Trent which thou affirmest that I did neuer read Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes were not so many as Fulke doeth make them Why howe many doe I make them I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augustines time were in this error that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ was to bee ministred to infantes And haue I not playnely and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine where is then this falsification If I had not prooued that which I sayde yet there is difference betwixt falsification and a false affirmation And because the Tridentine councell sayth it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli de Coron mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius and Lotharius and after citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised Si Episcopus c. If the Bishop be present it must bee immediately confirmed and then communicated If the Bishop bee not present before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing let the Prieste giue him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST yea before the Masse if necessitie require By this Testimonie it appeareth not onely that this custome was long obserued but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie so that masse should not be taried for if the infant were in any danger Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes and not of olde and 1. touching the bodies of Angels According to the demaunde of the challenger which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church to bee shewed him I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors which are not the matters in controuersie betweene vs but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church but those which I note vpon such occasion willeth all them that would know the true Church to consider that these errors if they bee any are so fewe and so light that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time no lesse then of olde time considering it is no lesse but much more vnreproueable of the aduersarie Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme they are sufficient if they were but one to proue that which I intend namely that the Popishe Church hath erred which being proued the surest piller of Poperie is broken and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures the true Church of God when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred will shewe themselues to bee errors which had nothing else to gayne them credite but this one false principle That the Popishe Church can not erre And touching the bodies of Angels where I say Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that Angels and soules of men had bodies were visible and circumscriptible and therefore must bee paynted affirming this to be the iudgement of the Catholike Church Bristowe answereth that I misreport the matter for it is not the councells determination nor saying but the saying onely of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica rehearsed in the councell with an admonition giuen by Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that ouerthrew the images of our Lorde his vndefiled mother seeing this holy father doth shew that Angels also may be painted But the trueth is as may apeare to euery man that wil read the Councel act 5 that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter After the saying of Ioannes is rehearsed in which this grosse error is conteined Tharasius the archb of Const. thereupon concludeth Ostendit autem pater quòd angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt vt homines apparuerunt This father sheweth that we ought to paint the angels also seeing they may be circumscribed haue appeared as men by which it is manifest that Tharasius approueth the opinion of Ioannes Would you now haue the determination of the Councel It followeth immediatly Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde By this it is manifest that not I but Bristow hath misreported the matter Where I sayde If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites haue bodies visible and circumscriptible there was neuer any errour since the world began Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith Soft man other manner of errours haue beene defended since the world began I wot well greater but if any of them be a manifest errour this is as manifest as any of them all Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this error that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it Basilius Athanasius Methodius yea Augustine he sayeth make a question of it In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers sounding to such a purpose it onely by mistaking the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or corpus which they vsed generally for that which nowe in the schooles according to Aristotle is called 〈◊〉
Popes superioritie ouer the councell And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such preâ—idency as the councell woulde graunt without all iuâ—isdiction of compulsion being himselfe compelled to â—â—taine that order of proceeding which the councell before â—is presidencie was admitted had obserued What Leo â—he tenth in his Laterane councell decreed against the â—ouncell of Basil I haue nothing to doe with it except 〈◊〉 be to proue that one pope going against the decrees of â—nother pope and one councell against another that â—either of both is to be credited Howe childish my inâ—ultation is howe voide of victorie my triumph howe â—nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are as Bristow scofâ—eth I leaue to all reasonable men to consider 3. Touching the Constance councels presumption I sayd it was horrible praesumption that the councell of Constance decreede contrarie to the worde of God in plaine wordes That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to bee receiued in both kindes and that the faithfull in the primitiue Church did so receiue it yet the custome of the Church of Rome shall preuaile and whosoeuer saith contrarie it â—an heretike These wordes he saith I print as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed in a distincte letter as the plaine wordes of the councell whereas these are not the wordes of the councell Heere is the quarell No sir I neuer ment to print these wordes as the wordes of the councell but as the summe and contente of them which because they were large I woulde not set downe at large in a bymatter But now being urged with falsification or at least false collectioÌ„ I wil set theÌ„ down as they a 〈…〉 CoÌ„ Const sessâ— 13. wtout any such interruptions as is vsâ—al with you to make that you might carie away the simple readen mind from the true sense of theÌ„ Cùm in nonnullis c. wheras in certaine partes of the worlde certeine parsons presume rashly to affirme that Christian people ought to receiue the sacrament of that Euchariste vnder both kindes oâ— bread wine do communicate the lay people euerie where not onely vnder the kind of bread but also vnder 〈◊〉 kinde of wine yea after supper or otherwise not fasting and stubbernely affirme that they ought so to be communicated against the laudable custome of the church resonably approued which as sacrilegious damnably they goe about to reproue hereof it is that this present holy generall councell of Constance lawfully gathered together in the holyghost entending to prouide for the saluation of the faithfull against this error hauing had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the lawe of god and of man declareth decreeth defineth that although Christ after supper did institute minister vnto his disciples this holy sacrament vnder both kindes of bread wine yet this notwithstanding the laudable authoritie of holy Canons the approued custome of the Church hath obserued doth obserue that this sacrament ought not to be made after supper neither to be receiued of the faithful not fasting but in case of sicknesse or other necessitie of right or of the Church graunted or admitted And as this custome to auoide certeine daungers and offences is reasonably brought in that although in the primitiue church this sacrament was receiued of the faithfull vnder both kinds afterward of theÌ„ which make it it is receiued vnder both kinds of the lay people only vnder the kind of bread seeing it ought most stedfastly to be beleeued by no meanes to be doubted but that the whole bodie and bloud of Christ is truly coÌ„tained as wel vnder the kind of bread as vnder the kind of wine WhervpoÌ„ seeing such a custome by the church holy fathers is reasonably brought in hath beene very long obserued it must be takeÌ„ for a law which it is not lawful to reproue or with out the authority of the church to change at mens pleasure â—herfore to say that to keep this custom or law is sacrilege 〈◊〉 vnlawfull it ought to be iudged erroneous and they â—hich stubbernly affirme the contrary of the premisses are 〈◊〉 be driuen away as heretiks to be greuosly punished â—y that dyocessanes of the places or their officials or by the inâ—uisitor of heretical prauity in those kingdomes or proâ—inces in which any thing perhaps shal be attempted or â—resumed against this decree according to the Canonicall â—nd lawful functions which haue ben solemnly inveÌ„ted 〈◊〉 fauour of the Catholike faith against heretikes and â—heir fautors Here you see the prelates of the councel take â—pon theÌ„ as great authority in altering the matter of the saâ—rament which is a necessarie part of the institutioÌ„ therof â—s in ordering the time in which it shal be ministred which â—s no part of the institution therof Also that they confes that â—n the primitiue church the sacrament was receiued in both â—inds therfore they are presuÌ„ptuous to say hoc noÌ„ obstaÌ„te â—his notwtstaÌ„ding the custome of later yeares brought in â—s reasonable shal be obserued as a law the gainsayers â—herof being coÌ„deÌ„ned punished as heretikes Brist caâ—illeth that they say not the custome of the church of Rome as I said As though wheÌ„ they speake of the custome of the church they meane any other church but the church of R. Such bables B. hath to couer their blasphemous sacriâ—legious presumption Touching certain false interpretations of scripture To color the false interpretatioÌ„s folowing he coÌ„meÌ„deth the sayings of August de doct Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth euery maÌ„ principally to shoote at that sense of the writer in expositioÌ„ of the scripture but if he misse that sense hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith or is profitable to build charity towards god our neighbor he is not perniciously deceiued c. VpoÌ„ this Allen in his offer to that protestaÌ„t saith Ar. 86. 87. Let any man proue vnto me that the true only church of god may falsely interprete any sentence of holy scripture I recant This generall offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye or wilfully lying as is conteined in Saint Augustines sayinges vnto whiche Bristowe woulde nowe seeme to make relation I did accept And first I proued that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Westerne Church did falsely interprete this scripture Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c. and that to maintaine a false opinion of the necessitie of the communion for all persons and euen infantes that should haue life euerlasting and therefore repugnant to right faith as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter Secondly I noted diuerse places of scripture not onely falsely but also ridiculously expouÌ„ded in the second councell of Nice to maintaine idolatrie against the expresse commaundement of God and therefore contrary to the right faith
and the loue of God Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith that they are not the interpretations of the councell whose interpretation they are not bounde to defende but onely their definitions but they are the interpretations of particular persons To this I answere they are contained in the synodal book sent into the Westerne Churches to stirre them vp to idolatrie which booke was aunswered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commaundement and in his name therefore they are approued by the councell yea some of them are contained also in that report of the councell which is set downe in the bookes of councels The text of lighting a candell and putting it vnder a bushel is affirmed of Bristowe to be well applyed in the Epistle of Constantinus his mother to the synod But he is deceiued For there is no argument of setting of images vpon the altar drawne out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal aboue rehearsed confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus The seconde text God made man according to his image therefore we must haue images in the Church Bristowe confesseth to bee contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperour But the same is approued in the councell and is the popes Epistle whose credit is greater with you than the councels But he doth not conclude you say that therfore we must haue images in the Church What then forsooth that a◠Adam being the image of God is to be honoured so euery image is holy that i◠made in the name of God be it an image of Angels prophets Apostles martyrs or iust persons This conclusion conteineth more thē I vrged namely the worshiping of images not the making of thē only And because you are so impudēt to say it is not the coūcel but pope Adrianus that so saith c I wil let the reader vnderstand that in the seconde action there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian reade in the synode one to the Emperours the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople Afterward Peter and Peters liuetenants of the Pope required Tharasius to declare whether he cōsented to the Popes letters or no. Tharasius answered that concerning the worshiping of images he did allow the Popes letters Thē said the Synod Vniuersa sancta Synodus c. The whole holy synod doth so beleeue and teach Peter and Peters Legates of the sea Aposto like saide Let the holy synode tell vs whether it receiue the letters of the most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synode aunswered we follow them we receiue them and allowe them The 3. text As we haue heard so we haue seene in the citie of our God ps 48. to proue that God must not be knowne by onely hearing of his word but also by sight of images Bristowe affirmeth that it is not the councell that citeth it but a Deacon called Epiphanius which readeth it to the councell out of a booke of his owne I answere hee readeth it with approbation and good liking of the councell which in effect is al one But he citeth it not saith Bristowe to shew how God must be knowne but about the storie of Christs manhoode nor to proue immediately that the said story must be painted c. as though God can be knowne but by Christ for knowledge of whom by imagery he cyteth this text of the Canticle also Can. 2. shew me thy face let me heare thy voyce And whether it be immediately or mediately certain it is that he citeth this text Pal. 48. to proue that the pictures of saincts are rightly deliuered in the Church none otherwise then the reading of the holy gospel The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense falsified in words is Ioan. 10. ver 29. My father which gaue them vnto me speaking of his sheep is greater then al. Which text in the Councell of Lateran holden vnder Pope Innocent the thirde is falsified in words after this manner Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus That whiche the father hath giuen me is greater then all and interpreted to proue the eternall begetting of Christ of the substance of his father To this Bristow aunswereth her◠is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense What sense Allen hath of false interpretation I knowe not sure I am that a text cannot be truely interpreted in sense when it is corrupted in wordes which make the sense Secondly he saith that of my two crimes I must strike out one for supposing the text to be as the councell alledgeth it the interpretation is not vnapt But I reply supposing the text to be as it is in deede Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needes drawe with it not onely an vnapt but also a wrong interpretation But what couler of reason haue you saith he that the councell hath falsified the words of that text Is it not in the vulgar Latine translation verbatim as the councell alledgeth it yes verily And so is the councell cleared of that crime also Not so soone as you weene for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture haue crept into your translation it had beene the councels dutie not to haue winked at it if it could haue seene it much lesse to haue confirmed it so farre forth as of so many texts which cleerely proue Christ to bee consubstantiall with his father it coulde finde none but take this corrupted and falsified text But the most auncient Latine writers saint Augustine saint Ambrose and saint Hilarie doe reade iumpe as we doe saith Bristowe That doth not amende the matter one whit but sheweth the errour of the Latine Church to haue the longer continued which in the councell of Lateran if it could haue espied it ought rather to haue bene reformed then confirmed But will you chaunge your copie saith Bristowe and frame your accusation anewe against the translation as differing from the Originall that is from the Greeke Sir I neede not chaunge my copie for my accusation is alreadie framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrarie to the originall trueth yet Bristowe goeth on But afore you doe so take my counsaile with you and bee sure first that the Greeke is so as you say For some Greeke copies of auncient also had euen as we haue as namely the copie which saint Cyrill being a Greeke Doctor expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in Ioan. cap. 10. In deede it were not amisse to take the councell of such a learned Grecian as Bristowe is that I might bee sure howe the Greeke text is For hee can tell me of auncient Greeke copies yea namely of that which saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor did followe and expounde which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text Verely the sight of such a copie woulde doe mee great pleasure But vntill I may see it I will suspende my iudgement and in the meane time I woulde borrowe a worde or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower
gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
rules enacted by Parliament for condemning heresie if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect and not deride them like a scornefull traitor he might vnderstand that the three later are not contrarie to the first which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture which is declared either in the 4. first general councels or in any other generall councell agreeing with the scripture or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter Not that the Parliament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie or to make any thing heresie which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures What if I woulde not were I worse then the Thessalonians or Bereans which dayly searched the scriptures to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture saith Bristowe and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth Gal. 1. which was of preaching as if it were of onely scripture I aunswere my wordes are these if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth he is to be accursed but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God since the Apostles departure but the canonicall scriptures which doe containe al that they preached the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of saluatioÌ„ then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels 〈…〉 he see apostolike and succession of bishops with a note 〈◊〉 the ende what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence whereof if I had any couler my selfe 〈…〉 o mountybanke pedler is so facing and boasting as I â—nd my fellowes As franke as I seeme in renouncing â—hat goodly euidence I trust to be carefull enough to â—olde fast the euidence of eternall life which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God and if I and my fellowes boast in â—hem because our boasting is in God I doubt not but â—ee shal be better accepted of him then they that count â—hat boasting a stale exception and boast in vanitie 〈…〉 ust in lying and at least make flesh for their arme â—heir heart departeth from the liuing God 4 Against the fathers Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares 〈…〉 ter Christ because I knowe they cannot yet in that 〈…〉 allenge I say nothing contradictorie to my former 〈…〉 ssertion that onely the worde of God conteined in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures is the iudge of all doctrine and tryall of trueth and stay of a Christian mans conscience against any thing that is taught to be beleeued vnto saluation or concerning the worship of God either contrary to it or beside it But Fulkes two onelyes sayeth Bristowe namely onely the moste auncient Church and only Scripture are vtterly without all ground and but 〈…〉 eere voluntarie If it be without grounde to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof let euery Christian conscience consider As for the voluntarinesse â—f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie beâ—ause you will not accept them let your will stande in 〈…〉 eede of reason but if you call them voluntarie because you neede not accept them and yet approue your selues good Christians remember who it is that sayth my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come when you will not be tyed to the most auncient Churches testimony and the eldest writers of the same Nowe concerning other by quarrels and cauils whereas I sayde Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures wee receiue it with their praise and whatsoeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures we refuse with their leaue Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures But who made him so priuie of my meaning my wordes import no such thing for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian that which I spake of all the fathers in generall Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani non vt canonicas habeo sed eaâ— ex canonicâ—â— considero quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non congruit cuâ— pace eius respuo I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall but I consider them by the canonicall and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I receiue it with his praise but that which agreeth not I refuse it with his leaue I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly by that which agreeth with the Scripture to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes Where I sayde that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest worde of God and the credite of the Apostles there is no cause that we should be carryed away with them Bristowe sayeth in the margent aâ— though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles when wee saye The Apostles haue not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings you aunswere but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men is not to be receiued he noteth our absurditie because not onelye Melancton and such like as Allen hath tolde â—s were mortall men but also in the same terme of mortall men are the Apostles them selues comprehended And what of this Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton or of Peter and Paul as they were mortall men No verily Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone and the onely author of the doctrine whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste and therefore their writings wee receiue as the worde of God which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles Where I sayde We dare not depend vppon any one manâ—â—udgement for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde Bristowe answereth Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time yea and â—ith Christ him selfe and yet to winne such persons both the Apostles and Christ him selfe condescended to them accordingly And why do not you follow the example of Christ of his Apostles to winne so many thousandes as doe refuse
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
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
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
intercession of the Apostles in whose honour it was offered at their reliques there is no word although by any figure you vnderstand the Emperors tombe whereof he speaketh to signifie his soule which is rather a rhetoricall exornation shewing howe his tombe was honoured as cap. 67. he sheweth that all the princes of the armie and the Senate worshipped his dead bodie euen as they did when he was aliue which vaine pompe he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God to be giuen to the Emperors But in effect you can shewe no more of Constantius fauouring of your religion but in that one error of praying for the dead to which I oppose his commandement laide vpon Metriades bishop of Rome to heare the cause of Cecilianus Eâ—seb lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Councel de lit Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeale from the bishop of Rome and other like matters shewing his souereigne authoritie ouer the bishop of Rome and other Prelates I said that although Theodoret report that Theodosius the younger praied for his parents foules yet the storie saith not that he praied to Saint Chry so stome for them Bristow opposeth the Tripartite storie and Theodoret in Latine lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter 36. where Theodoret in his owne words speaking of the tombe of Chrysostome saith of Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He setting vpon the tombe both his eyes and forehead offered a supplication for his parents desiring pardon for them that had done iniurie of ignoraunce These wordes inforce not praier to Saint Chrysostome although praier to the dead was at that time erroniously practised That Allen citeth out of Ambrose of Honorius standing by the holie altars while the solemnitie of his fathers funerall was celebrated maketh little to proue Honorius to haue bene a Papist although in that point I denie not which can not yet of those wordes be proued that he might be occupied in praier for the deade according to the errour of his time One errour can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith who is knowne to haue bene of that religion which Ambrose setteth foorth in his writings contrarie to Papistrie in the most and most necessarie pointes vnto saluation The 40. dayes minde which Allen would begge out of that place to resemble their Popish monethes minde I haue sufficiently reproued by shewing the continuance of the fourtie daies solemnitie without intermission That the last day was one of the fourtie and kept with singular solemnitie as is vsuall in such cases which Bristowe opposeth can not make a iust resemblance of the Popish mone thes mindes which are a renouation of a mourning or solemnitie intermitted Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the generall desection to haue bene of our religion Bristowe in a lurious rage noteth in the margent Sce the impudent heretike them whome he condemned before But who is this impudent heretike that condemned those Christian Emperors before or where is there any word of their condemnation Is there no difference betweene reprouing of an errour and condemuing of the person But let that passe among Bristowes impudent and malicious slaunders The Kings of the earth saith he haue not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon when they humblie adored the Church of Rome and licked the dust of her feete as they are commaunded by the Prophet Esai 49. 60. c. This shall be confessed when it is proued that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christe and not the strumpet of Babylon although the Prophet speake not of bodily bowing kissing or licking Where I name Ziska Procopius and George king of Bohemia defenders of the Protestants Bristow saith it was an 100. yeares before the name much more the religioÌ„ of the Protestants was coined as though their religioÌ„ might not be before that name was vsed to cal theÌ„ by But that Edward the third was a Wicleuist who euer heard saith Bristow And who euer heard me say or write that he was a Wicleuist I saide Ar. 34 that king Edward other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause and for that you may read at large M. Foxes storie of Wickleue CoÌ„cerning the booke of Caro lus Magnus against images I haue aunswered Sander Bristowe else where The booke of Berttam is entituled ad Carolum magnum although Trithemius say it was vnto Charles the king brother of Lotharius the antiquitie of which inscription is elder then Trithemius except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fansie durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence transubstantiation therefore Charles the King or Emperor did hold this opinion He that will read the booke shal see he doth plainly expresse his iudgement against the corporall presence and as for transubstantiation there was no question thereof in his time In the 21. Demaund of Churches where I say the Papistes had wonne no more if we could shewe neuer a Church but such as haue bene builded by Papistes and to Popish vses then the idolaters against the Apostles which could shewe no temples but builded vnto idols Bristowe saith the challenge were not one because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion we renounce Popish religion but not all their Churches The cause whâ—e the Apostle renounced their temples was for that manie of them were not for the vse of Christian religion although if credite may be giuen to our countrie histories the Pagans temples were conuerted to Christian Churches both by the Brytons Saxons But those conuerters saith Bristowe were the founders of them be it so yet were they not the builders of them Yet such as were builded by Christian princes were builded that their soules might be praied for in them as that Church of the twelue Apostles builded by Constantine the great whereof mention is before c. Of so manie Chruches as he builded onely in building that one he had that erronious conceit Where I say the olde Churches were builded onely in the honor of God and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures Saints and Angels Marie wellymet quod Bristowe They were called Basilicae Martyrum ApostoloruÌ„ the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches c. Ergo They were not builded to the honour of God onely but to the honour of creatures when the olde writers whome I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirme that a temple belongeth onely to God And Augustine expresly denieth that they were the temples but the memories of those Martyrs whose names they bare and as foraltars he vtterly denieth them vnto creatures Where I said that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome Bristowe crieth blessing on Iouinian Whie Bristowe Was there neuer any Bishop of Rome married Was there no priest married in Hierome and Augustines time although Iouinian could not persuade
authoritie or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles And consequently there is no cause to thinke that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vpon them for departing from that see In the 29. Demaund of Traditions where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians which accused the scriptures of imperfection saying that they are ambiguous and that the trueth can not be found in them by such as knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth c. Bristowe answereth that S. Irenee him selfe as al Catholikes will haue both scripture and tradition Yea sir but what tradition any trueth of doctrine conserued by tradition which is not contained in the holie scriptures nothing lesse But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures Hunc patrem c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches they that wil may learne out of the scripture it selfe and vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered is contained in their writinges and it is still an hereticall assertion to say that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing but some by word of mouth In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie where I affirme the order of the Apostles schoole is first to heare the word of God preached and then to beleeue Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend that he first beleeued and afterward sought to vnderstand Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine lib Retr 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to haue ben for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught by most certaine reason what was true whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles without requiring a reason of their doctrine howe vaine it is I leaue to children to laugh at seeing I speak not of reason but of the word of God preached which must needes goe before faith Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil cred cap. 13. where he saith It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion But howe should faith be persuaded but by the preaching of the word of God without curious inquisition according to the reason of man Where I say that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God Bristow derideth their authoritie who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word as though the Popish superiors might not or their supreme head although beside so many blasphemous errors as he holdeth wherof the controuersie is with the Papistes it haue not bene oft proued that diuers Popes haue bene condemned euen by generall Councels for heretikes Where I saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops Bristowe saith if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme I would not so say But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke who died soudenly but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things appeareth but the contrarie Where I saide that to beleeue the Catholike Church is not to beleeue all and euery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine Bristowe would haue me suppose the Apostles had said Credo S. Romanam ecclesiam and then asketh howe I would haue construed it Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas c. But if the Apostles would haue taught vs to giue credite to the Church of Rome in all things they would haue taught vs to say Credo Romanae ecclesiae And Credo scripturis Canonicis duodecim Apostolis quatuor Euangelistis c. I giue credite to the holy scriptures to the twelue Apostles and to the foure Euangelistes For Credo with an Accusatiue case to signifie I giue credite howe so euer you deride my grammatication will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme as he is reported to haue done once for fiatur In the 35. Demand of Vnitie where I said the Church may be called the house of peace because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith Bristowe saith by this reason many olde heresies were with in the house of peace because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest may breake peace as that of quartadecimani who disagreed onely in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion might be in the house of peace as Irenaeus testifieth if obstinate contempt of generall order did not make a schisme and of a schisme an heresie as in the Donatistes Otherwise difference in a ceremonie as I said maketh not diuision of faith Bristowe saith yes if they holde their ceremonie necessarie But then they holde it not as a ceremonie or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull But that maketh not diuision Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie against Anicetus yet he was not diuided from him for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus nor Anicetus with him No more doe they among vs that differ in opinion of ceremonies except some fewe schismaticall heades that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes Bristowe saith are such as may be among Christians as Augustine testifieth Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel if Bristowe may be beleeued If we might haue a Christiā generall Councel for such matters as are in controuersie among vs I doubt not but we should agree better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie remaineth still among you notwithstanding the Florentine Councel which you say most impudently that I confesse to haue resolued the matter when an other Councel and an other Pope at the same time
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
succession being a grosse error I will not stand to confute because it is none of the principall matters in controuersie Where I saide that if succession of persons and places were sufficient the Greeke Church is able to name as many as the Latine Church and in as orderly succession Ar. 27. Bristowe asketh what of that but onely this that they therefore may better claime the Church than we Yes this one thing more that by this my shewing of succession in the Greeke Church which you can not denie Allen is bound to recant and that the Greekes by title of succession may claime the Church as well as you But those hereticall and schismaticall Greekes saith Bristowe can no more shewe succession than your false Bishops which are in the sees of Poole Bonner Thirlby c and yet I â—roâ—e he will not thereby claime succession We may by as good right as you claime succession to the Apostles and godly Bishop of Rome whome you succeede not in doctrine For neither haue you any right succession but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church Boniface the third and his fellowes But Gregorie saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Church of Rome But so doth not the Councels of Constantinople which before Gregories time decreed that the Church of Constantinople should be equall in all thinges with the Church of Rome the title of senioritie onely reserued because Constantinople was newe Rome Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop 1. ca. 2. c. In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolike see where I say it auaileth not the Papistes that the Church was planted at Rome by the Apostles except they can proue succession of doctrine as well as of men Bristowe saith In prouing the succession of men only we do as much as the Fathers did But I say that is false for the fathers alledge succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding In the 45 Demaund of chaunging where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge witnessing that Gregorie was the first that compelled Priestes to liue vnmarried Bristowe answereth that seeing I confesst that he reuoked his error he made no change froÌ„ his fathers faith Yes sir although he reuoked his decree yet was the same receiued by them that came after him But the storie of that Epistle is derided by Cope which affirmeth that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. yeares before Vdalrichus was made Bishop Thus these impudent Papists when they can neither corrupt nor wrest to their purpose the monuments of antiquitie they will vtterly denie them Whereas the Papists contrarie to the old vsage of the Church by Allens confession doe absolue before satisfaction Bristowe saith both manners haue bene alwaies vsed and bringeth example of men absolued iâ— sicknesse which if they recouered performed their satisfaction after But Papistes absolue them that are in health before satisfaction which is contrarie to the old vsage Where I tell them that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregorie and Stephanus of Formosus Bristowe saith not one Pope hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine It were hard for him to proue that none of those Popes all whose actes their successors disanulled made any decrees of doctrine And certaine it is that Gregorie made decrees of doctrine or else the Popes Canon lawe doth lie al whose decrees yea and bookes also as containing heresie his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned But supposing saith he that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite both in opinion and in some secrete writing yet did he not change nor go about to change the Romanes into Monothelites What meant he then to write hereticall Epistles but to drawe other into his heresie Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople plainely discouer him to the Councel that he followed that heretikes minde in all things and confirmed these vngodly opinions Con. Constantin 6. Action 13. And to what end but betwene them to change the faith of the whole Church both of the East and of the West into Monothelitisme But that you may see a plaine contradictorie vnto Bristowes bolde and lying affirmation I will rehearse the wordes of Pope Leo the second in his Epistle vnto the same Councel Act. 18. Pariterque anathematizamus c. Also we accurse the inuentors of the newe error c. naming them among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolike Church with doctrine of Aposto like tradition but by prophane treason did go about to ouerthrowe the immaculate faith Yet against al this testimonie of antiquitie Sander in his Monarchie proueth that Honorius was no Monothelite and that Iohn 22. did not as Caluine and we belie the storie denie the immortalitie of the soule and resurrection of the bodie neither was any such thing laide against him by his contentious enimies but whether the soules doe see God before the generall resurrection but he also denied that error c. To this I must needes say that Bristowe is either an ignorant reporter or an impudent lier except he will say that Caluine or some of vs wrote the report of the Councel of Constance where he was accused and conuicted by witnesse to haue denied the mortalitie of the soule and the resurrection of the body and life euerlasting Session II. And in the next Session he confessed that the Councel of Constance was most holie and could not erre As for the assertion of Pope Ioane the feminine Pope I referre the reader to Maister Iewels replie to Harding where he proueth it by auncienter testes than Martinus Polonus howe so euer Bristowe sawe it in a marginall note I wot not where not in what Protestantes hand as he reporteth In the sixe and fourtie Demaund of our auncetors saued or damned he maruelleth where my wit was when I alledged against Canonization the example of burning Hermannus the heretike in Ferraria where he was worshipped twentie yeares Apocryphally But if he had not bene canonized as you say where was the Popes care of the Church that so neare him in Italie he would suffer such grosse idolatrie so long time to be committed and continued Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negatiue the affirmatiue that he was canonized which so long had bene worshipped without contradiction is more probable seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any vngodly vsage so long to be vncontrolled Where I saide the Papistes can not proue that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles principall Martyrs Bristowe asketh if making of holie daies and to name them in diptychis among Saintes in the holy Canon of the Masse is not proofe sufficient of their canonization No sir if that be canonization which your late Canons and practise doth allowe but if it were I say the Apostles and principal Martyrs had daies of remembrance of their godly life and doctrine names
as they write of be orderly successions By the time of these Fathers saith Bristowe there had bene foure schismes Ar. 85. Aunswere In the first proposition I speake of Tertullians time and succession of doctrine and name succession simplie In the second proposition I speake of the whole time vntill our dayes and of succession of persons and of orderly succession therefore no contradiction The fourth It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles it retained by succession that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contra he chargeth it with sundrie errors here cap. 3. 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes and eight Popes for the supremacie I might aunswere that the charging of the Popes chargeth not the Church but in the first proposition I spake of the Church of Rome in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian holding the doctrine of the Apostles contrarie to those heresies against which they write The fift It was a true Church and Apostolike Church a faithfull Church true and Apostolike faith and religion haue dwelled in her Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra The Church of Rome neuer preached the trueth She neuer had since she first arose the ministring of sacraments according to Christes institution The true Catholike Church hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes But the Popish Church was neuer able to encounter with heretikes Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns but neuer did good to Christians I am able to proue that the primitiue Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27. The latter part of this contradiction with as many falsifications as there be quotations doe sufficiently declare that in all those places I speake of the Popishe Church of Rome that nowe is and not of the true Church which of olde time was at Rome Yet to giue the reader a taste of his falsification of my wordes Ar. 106. which hee rehearseth thus Rome may be a nurse c. in truth they are these Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of mans traditions in steade of the milke of Gods worde and will rather see them famish than they should taste of Gods worde may well bee a nurse of Antichristians but neuer did good vnto Christians The sixt The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie whereof the whore beareth a cuppe full out of which all nations haue dronke Ar. 102. 38. Euen from the Apostles â—ime the diuell neuer left to set in his foote for his sonne Antichristes dominion vntill he had placed him in the temple of God and prepared the wide world for his walke and then came the generall defection Pur. 287. Contra all nations neuer consented to the doctrine of the Papistes For it hath bene often saide the Greeke Church and all other Orientall Churches of Assa and Africa neuer receiued the Popish religion in many chiefe points and specially in acknowledging the Popes authoritie they will not vnto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholike nor her authoritie to be lawfull Ar. 38. 16 33. 34. These places being both full of falsifications yet if they had bene in so many wordes set downe by me imploy no contradiction For it may be that all nâ—tions meaning as the scripture whose wordes I cite Apoc. 18. not all of euerie nation but some of all nations haue dronke of the whores cup and yet neuer receiued her religion in al things And the general defection is meant of that great apostasie that S. Paul speaketh of in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ though they fall not all to the Pope For many are fallen to Mahomet many reuolted to idolatrie many to other heresies beside Poperie The 7. The religion of Papistes came in and preuailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his AntichristiaÌ„ exaltatioÌ„ to wit Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the heade of all the Church Ar. 36. Contra in the same place Because you speak of the first entring of Popish religion which dependeth chiefly vpon the Popes authoritie it first beganne to aduaunce it selfe in Victor about the yeare of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here Popish religion in one piece first beganne to aduaunce it selfe Anno 200. and after came in and preuailed Anno 607. The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie Euen in the Apostles time and from that time in all times when so euer and where so euer was any piece of myste or darke corner there were the steppes of your walke It may be a shame for you Papistes to leaue and condemne for heresie all that is true in the Fathers writings and agreeable to the scriptures Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papistes from the great heresies and open aduersaries that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith as the Valentinians Marcionistes Manichees Arrians Sabellians and such like monsters Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction which is not of the religion of the Papistes but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the auncient Fathers which among the Papistes are growne to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians Marcionistes c. And yet there can be no contradiction where the subiectes of both propositions are not all one But here the one is of the Popish Church which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan the other is of the religion of Papistes The Papistes by communion of the diuels Church communicate with all heresies The 9. We say not that the religion of Papistes came in soudenly but that it entred by small degrees at the first and therefore â—aâ—â—esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies not preached against winked at because it had a shewe of Pietie and Charitie and at length allowed of Augustine and others who followed the common errors of their time Specially when a generall defection and departing from the faith was foreshewed what marueile were it if none colde preach against it as it first entred Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra The Church of Christ in such places as she is suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion without open reprehension Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries as that I should say The religion of papistes was not preached against c. Winked at c. Allowed of Augustine c. For I neuer said so of the whole religion of papists but of some fewe errors budding vp in antient times But both Ar. 36. where I aske What maruaile c. as an obiection I doe neuerthelesse shewe who preached against the vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome which yet tended not to a damnable error Ar. 38. I affirme there was both preaching
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
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
corpus suum appellat He calleth the bread his bodie But we cannot call a thing except we speake vnto it Therfore when Christ called the bread his bodie he spake vnto the breade as if he had said vnto the bread be thou my bodie Who woulde haue thought it Sander cannot call a stone a stone but he speaketh to a stone nor a shouell a shouell but hee speaketh to a shouell And with Sander it is all one to say This is a shouell or a stone and be thou a shouell or a stone Nay he will say with God calling and making is all one where he will make one thing of another In deede that is another matter If this will of God coulde be prooued of the bread to make his naturall bodie calling and making might be one and yet it woulde not followe that Christ intending to turne breade into his naturall bodie by these wordes This is my bodie coulde not doe it except hee spake to the bread But nowe let vs see howe hee proueth that Christ made the breade his naturall bodie First Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst init Cap. 9. Ante bene dictionem c. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde after consecration the bodie is signified He himselfe nameth it his bloude Before consecration it is named another thing after consecration it is called bloude And thou sayest Amen that is it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inwarde minde confesse That which the speech soundeth let the affection feele Out of these wordes Sander saith that it is euident that Christ spake to the breade and wine but by what reason I cannot deuise and that the making of them is in deede so as they are called and signified because the people answered Amen I graunt the breade and wine are made sacraments to signifie the bodie and bloude of Christe and that is it which the people confesse if Ambrose expounde the words of Christ truely when hee saith that the bodie of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called breade and wine before the words of blessing and afterward is called the body and bloud of Christ. This 1. witnesse speaketh not so much against him but Tertullian his second witnesse speaketh much more Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei He made the breade which was taken and distributed to the disciples his bodie saying This is my bodie that is to say the figure of my bodie Loe hee made the breade his bodie Wee confesse but howe his bodie That is to say a figure of his bodie but beeing a figure stoppeth not the reall trueth of his bodie saieth hee no more then Christ being a figure printe or forme of his fathers substance which is yet also his substance in deede What sayest thou Sabellian heretike Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis from his father because hee is Homousion of the same substance and is not that proued because hee is Character substantiae patris And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the diuinitie with the figures of Christ. Yea saieth Sander There can bee no more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinion then to thinke that Christ is a bare man c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the olde Lawe And againe looke what oddes is betweene God and man so much beleeue thou to bee betweene his naming or his figures of the newe Testament and all other figures Why Sander were the namings in the old Testament of man and not of GOD Were the figures instituted of man and not of God Yea were they not instituted of Christe himselfe If they were instituted of God howe followeth thy beastly conclusion of the difference or oddes of figures and naming of the newe Testament and figures and namings of the olde Testament The rocke was Christ it was a figure and naming of the olde Testament so named and instituted by Christ himselfe why shoulde there be more transubstantiation of the breade then of the rocke except as thou wast euen nowe a Sabellian so in this thou art a Marcionite that beleeuest another GOD and Christ of the newe Testament then was of the old Testament Augustine speaking of the figures of the old Testament and comparing them with the figures of the newe Testament sayeth Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria sunt Those were sacraments they are diuerse in signes but in the thinge which is signified they are equall in Ioan. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer and beside this examining Tertullian let vs aske him what did Christ distribute to his disciples Hee will answere panem breade Againe howe made hee the breade his bodie hee answereth hee made it a figure of his bodie Yea saieth Sander the Sacrament is a figure of Christes bodie because it sheweth his death vntill hee come But what is the sacrament with you Papistes The naturall body of Christe Then the naturall body of Christe is a figure of the body of Christe if this bee not shamelesse trifling I report mee to you Tertullian is a good expounder to interprete the name of Corpus by figura Corporis if Corpus bee taken properly But to proceede The next reason to proue that Christ spake to the breade is this The Sacrament is a sacrifice the acte which offereth it and voweth it perteineth as well to the thing offered as vnto God to whom it is offered as when a Lambe is offered God in the Lambe is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked and praysed I omitte these straunge phrases God is prayed to in a Lambe c. But speake plainely Sander if thou darest is the Lambe spoken vnto when it is saide This is the Passeouer This is the bloude of the couenant which God hath made with you For thou must not thinke to reason with men in such sort as boyes woulde not suffer thee to passe The acte of sacrificing perteyneth to the thing offered therefore the thing offered is spoken vnto But howe prouest thou that this Sacrament is a sacrifice Because it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice made by his death vpon the crosse It must also needes partake that nature whereof it is a remembrance and consequently it must bee certainely beleeued to bee a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was Who will grant or how canst thou proue the maior of this argument Euery remembrance must partake the nature of that wherof it is a remembrance Is the remembrance of a man a man or the remembrance of God God or to pose thee in thine owne popery is the memory of a Masse as you call it a Masse But that reason cannot proue authority shall enforce First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei the eucharistie of
of Christ which he eateth not Verie well For he which abuseth the Kings seale is guiltie of the kings Maiestie which he acknowledgeth not But this argument out of Saint Paul hee referreth vnto another time returning againe to Iudas That thinge whereof Christ saide to the twelue Take eate and drinke was taken eaten and dronken of all the twelue and was but one thing onely concerning eating and drinking that is his body and bloud therefore Iudas did eat the same that Peter Iames and Iohn did Wee heard in the last Chapiter of the first booke that it consisted of two things by the iudgement of Irenaeus an earthly sub stance and an heauenly the one all receiued the other onely the faithfull therefore the antecedent of this argument is false But if that argument be not plaine ynough wee must take another Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing Eche of them that foode whereof Christe sayde this is my body but Iohn did truely eate Christes bodie ergo Iudas did truely eate Christes body I aunswere the maior is ambiguous for if one foode bee taken for one breade it is true but if one thing bee taken for the bodye of Christ it is the matter in controuersie and denyed of vs. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous For if ye vnderstande eating of Christs bodie truly eating by faith spiritually it is true and as the Apologie meaneth if you vnderstande eating Christes bodie carnallie it is false and denyed of the Apologie that Iohn did so eate the bodie of Christ. The argument is no better then this Iudas and Iohn did heare one Gospel each of them that whereof it is saide that it is the power of God to saluation But Iohn did heare the Gospel to his saluation ergo Iudas did heare the Gospel to his saluation But Sander cauelleth of deliuering of bakers breade and nothing else but Bakers breade Christ offereth two thinges earthly breade and his diuine bodie Nowe if Iudas receiue the one and refuse the other what folly is it to reason of Christes deliuering which is like as if a man will deliuer an obligation as his deede and the partie that shoulde receiue it will not receiue it but as a scrolle and so renteth it in peeces In deede therefore Christ offereth his bodie to all men but they onely receiue it which beleeue But eating by faith saith Sander is a preparation to worthie eating but the meate is all one euen as the baptisme is all one to the wicked and to the godly I will aske no better example then of the Sacrament of Baptisme where indeede the water which is the outwarde element is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed as the breade is to all that eate but regeneration the thing signified by the water is proper onely to the electe of GOD Euen so the bodie of Christ which is the thing signified by the breade is not receiued but of them which beleeue vnto eternall life CAP. III. The ancient fathers teach that euill men receiue truely the bodie of Christ. The first father cited is Origen in Psalme 37. who â—aith that those which come to the Eucharistie without examining and clensing themselues are like to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meats of whole men do hurt themselues Whereupon Sander gathereth that the meat of the supper which is prouided for whole men is truly but not profitably eaten of the wicked But that Origen was of no such iudgment it is manifest by his expresse wordes spoken of the eating of the sacrament of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porrò de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus quem qui comederit omninò viuet in aeternuâ— quem nullus mallus potest edere Etenim si fieri possit vt qui malus adâ—â—c perseueret edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viâ—â—s nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vinet in aeternum And these things truly are spoken of the figuratiue or symbolical body Many thinges also may be spoken of the worde himselfe which was made fleshe and very meate which whosoeuer shall eate vndoutedly he shall liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it were possible that he which continueth still euill should eate the worde which is made flesh seing he is the word and the bread of life it had not beene written Whosoeuer shal eate this bread shall liue for euer The second father is Basil de baptismo lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Asking what shall a man say of him who dareth in vaine and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ To this I answere that Basil speaketh not of wicked men but of the faithfull in whome the spirit of God was and yet a great worke of mortification therefore it followeth after the wordes cited by Sander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore much more giuing the holye spirite They are not wicked in whome the holy spirit is Therefore the Aduerbes Idely and vnprofitably are not spoken simplie but comparatiuely for not so diligently as they ought not so profitably as they might The thirde father is Cypriane de Coen Domini The sacraments for their part cannot bee without their proper vertue neither doth Gods maiesty by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But albeit the sacraments permit themselues to be taken or touched of vnworthie men yet those men cannot bee partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse withstandeth such holinesse This authoritie is flatte against Sander the wicked may receiue the Sacramentes but not the spirite of Christ if not the spirite then not the bodie for Christ his bodie is neuer disseuered from his spirite The fourth father is Hierome but where hee sheweth not Opponis mihi c. Thou layest vnto mee the one measure of Manna called Gomor and wee take the bodie of Christe equallie According to the merites of them that receiue that which is one is made diuerse c. The Sacrament is one in it selfe c. There is no question but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament which is called the bodie of Christe but of the bodie of Christ in deede they are not partakers For it cannot bee truely saide of the naturall bodie of Christ that it is made diuerse but the Sacrament which is called his bodie is made diuerse according to the faith or infidelitie of him that receiueth it Augustine is the fifte witnesse In Epist. 162. Tolerat c. Our Lorde him selfe beareth with Iudas hee suffereth a deuill a thieefe and the seller of himselfe to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Nothing is our price saieth Sander but the bodie of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament bee called
myracle made in meate gaue occasion to that doctrine vttered in that Chapter as S. Iohn sheweth The 3. circumstance the Propheticall promise what he would doe the Easter tweluemoneth after I answere that promise was fulfilled in his passion The 4. the conference of thinges done and said about the sea of Tiberias at Capernaum with that was done and said in the last supper This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift The 6. the eating of Christes gift to come To these two circumstances I answere that Christ exhorteth the Iewes to the present eating of his flesh vpon paine of damnation Except ye eate the flesh c. He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therfore the flesh bloud of Christ might be eaten and drunken before his supper Wherfore none of these circumstances do proue a promise of a sacramentall eating which may be without profite nor an eating of the naturall substance of flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament which at that time was not instituted But nowe we must come to the conferences Foure of which conferences are bread 2. blessing 3. thanksgiuing 4. eating in both I answere so there was in all the dinners and suppers that euer hee did make Beside that heere is multiplying and fish which is not in the last supper Therefore a vaine conference The fift is that as heere hee beginneth his talke of common breade and endeth with eating and drinking his fleshe and bloude so in his supper hee tooke common breade in his handes and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and bloude But when Sander can make a consequence of this conference I will yeelde vnto it that he speaketh of Sacramentall eating The 6 and 7. the sonne of man is the giuer meate is giuen in both ergo hee speaketh in both of the Sacraments I denie the argument for the meate which the sonne of man giueth may bee eaten without the Sacrament and therefore hee saith he that nowe eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud when as yet that sacrament was not instituted The 8. conference Hee saith the breade which I will giue is my fleshe and not the bread which I will take So in his supper he tooke one kinde of breade and gaue another This is a noble conference to tel vs what Christ said not According to which I might conferre this He saith the breade which I will giue hee saieth not the drinke which I will giue is my bloude therefore in the supper he giueth not his bloude The 9. conference the fleshe is giuen in the one and nothing but the bodie in the other for the substance of common breade was chaunged This reason in deede is of great weight if transubstantiation were granted The 10. No common breade is giuen in either of both places if by common breade he meant prophane breade and not dedicated to holy vse I confesse the conference but seeing by common breade he meaneth naturall breade I denie it For though no naturall or materiall breade was promised to bee giuen in the sixte of Saint Iohn yet was naturall breade giuen in the Sacrament The 11. The fleshe that dyed for vs is giuen in both That is true but after diuerse manners in the one it is giuen in a Sacrament in the other more generally but in both to bee spiritually receiued and not carnally The 12. The gift is eaten in deede in both I confesse but spiritually and by faith yet with this difference that in the one it is eaten often without the sacrament the other is a seale or a sacrament of that which is eaten euen without it The 13. The bloude of Christ is drunke in both It is so drunke as the flesh is eaten The 14. As in the sixt of Iohn there is no wine spoken of so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine but of drinking nor gaue any wine at all to bee drunke because it was by his wordes chaunged into his bloude I answere If bread were spoken of in that which was taken into his hands wine by Metonymia was spoken of by taking the cuppe Secondly if the fruite of the vine be the matter of wine wine was spoken of At Caparnaum there was no wine spoken of nor any occupied Let Sander see howe hee can make the conference with the supper in which wine was occupied although he say it was not drunk which is a weightie argument when that which is in question is brought for the proofe Last of all if Christ at his supper gaue no wine at all to be drunke as Sander saith howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christs supper seeing the Papistes doe giue wine to bee drunke vnto the laye people The 15. The twelue Apostles most faithfull taried with him at Caparnaum so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying to his holy table In the faithfull tarying of the twelue Apostles he forgetteth Iudas and that the twelue onely were present at the institution of the supper it is vncertaine For it is certaine there was more then twelue present at the eating of the Passeouer and it is prooued before that Iudas went out before the Sacrament ordeined The 16. Peter with the twelue protested in both places not to forsake Christe So they did at other times and places where no mention was of eating Christ. The last Iudas was reprooued in both places I answere Iudas was reprooued in other places where no promise or mention of the supper is made Finally I answere that not any one nor altogether of these conferences can make any consequence to prooue that our Sauiour Christ in that sixt of Iohns Gospel speaketh of the Sacrament otherwise then as it is a seale a pledge an vndoubted token of assurance of that spirituall eating drinking of Christs flesh and bloud which in that Chapter is commended vnto vs. CAP. III. It is prooued out of the holy Fathers and generall councels that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper I haue shewed euen nowe in what sort Christ may bee saide to haue spoken of his last supper in that chapter and of that sense and meaning are the most ancient and sounde fathers whome Sander citeth to bee vnderstoode And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christes fleshe and bloude which there is spoken of to bee peculiar vnto the supper and singulerly to bee vnderstoode of eating in the sacrament and not otherwise which is the onely thing which we denie and not that the doctrine of that Chapter doeth not at all pertaine to the supper but that it is further to bee extended then to the supper by which the carnall manner of eating of Christes flesh is manifestly ouerthrowne But let vs briefely runne ouer his authorities First Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen hee omitteth because they speake nothing almost sounding to his purpose But Cyprian in orat dominica
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
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
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
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
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
presence if any sacrament bee made at al Fisher whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if or condition you shal be answered to Fishers whether or question Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words Fisher of our doings If the scripture be not Christs words Fisher spake onely of our doings 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures Nay syr he affirmeth precisely that it cannot be proued by the scripture These are the foure great enormous fault I trust after this tast no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes falsely fathered vpon Master Iewel Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onely to the matter in controuersie Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued Videlicet that the people were not taught c. as in the beginning of the Chapter The question being not of the wordes but of the meaning saith Iewel Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. to proue that Christ lacked neither wisedome nor vtterance to speak plainely of his Sacraments and mysteries which is verie true for hee spake plainely syncerely and truely although he spake figuratiuely Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner as Augustine saith But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking M. Iewel M. Harding M. Sander and my selfe it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse as Sander giueth me example Iewel Christ was the Rocke but yet not really Sand. S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament or any other thing Fulke S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament made by God in the wildernes Sand. Two diuerse natures in those words are named which can not be one substance But this is my body nameth one substance Fulke One substance is demonstrated and another named Moses might haue said truely shewing the rock to the people This is Christe or els S. Paul could not haue said truly the rock was Christ. Sand. It was not anie one certaine rocke whereof S. Paul spake for the water flowed out of two Rocks Either of which did signifie Christ and they both are onely one Rocke in meaning and in substance figured therefore Saint Paul meant onely of the spirituall Rocke which is Christ. Fulke Manna which was the spirituall meat they did eate rayned euerie day yet was it but one Christ in signification therefore S. Paul meant onely of the spiritual Manna which is Christ and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke Iewel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his bodie and bloud Sand. He did so but he gaue such a figure as is also the substance of his bodie as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance is also the selfesame substance with his father Fulke As he gaue a figure he gaue not the substance Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as he is a person distinct by himselfe and not his father Neither doth Augustine meane of such an vnitie in essence as is betweene God the father the sonne when he doth plainly deuide sacramentum rem sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament that is the figure and the thing figured Sand. He gaue a true and not a false signe lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous not a common figure lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine not a rhetoricall figure lib. 2. cap 14. Fulke These are answered in their proper places aboue cited Sand. He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth not which betokeneth a thing absent from it which August declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come c. Fulke Augustine in this place and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament and of the new that theirs were of Christ to come once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come but of the reall presence he speaketh no word Ablata sunt signa promittentia c. The promising signes are taken away because the truth that was promised is exhibited In this bodie we are of this bodie we are partakers Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof after a mysticall manner and so were all that euer pleased GOD not after a corporall manner such as the Papistes imagine wherefore Augustine saith vpon the same Psalme alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament Sursum corda habcamus Siresurrexistis cum Christo dicit fidelibus corpus sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit c. Let vs haue our hearts aboue If yee bee risen againe with Christ hee speaketh to the faithfull hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde if you bee risen againe with Christ sauour of these things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely and not as he saith else-where Sacramento tenus as farre as the sacrament or outward signe onely Sand. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure Fulke Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14. Sand. The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible corruptible mortal nature which Augustine knowing was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth none otherwise then in the shape of breade for that respect hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie Fulke Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onely by way of a similitude sheweth that if children should neuer learne more of Christ then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them that it is the bodie of Christ and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onely in the celebration of the sacrament they woulde imagine that Christ had appeared onely in that shape but this is impossible therfore Augustine coulde not feare it And seeing hee had no such feare he had no such respect as Sander dreameth as well concerning his feare as concerning his respect Iew. Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie Sand. Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body Fulk Tertullian proueth that Christ had a true bodie because the sacrament was a figure thereof for a phātasme or a vaine thing can
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
within or lesse foode of the heart Fulke If Christ had not taken reall flesh to his diuine nature he could not haue bene the foode of eternall life to vs but there is no such necessitie of giuing his bodie in the forme of bread therefore the similitude is vnlike Iewel The thing that is receiued in spirit is receiued in deede Sand. Spirituall receiuing is good and true when it shouldreth not out reall receiuing Fulke If reall receiuing bee receiuing in deede spirituall receiuing shouldreth not out reall receiuing Iewel It is an holy mysterie and an heauenly action forcing our mindes vp to heauen and there teaching vs to eate the bodie of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies Sand. Is not verè sumimus spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies Fulke As concerning the outward sacrament but not concerning the bodie of Christ. Sand. Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs which you passe ouer in Hilarie as you were vtterly blinde The nature of Christs flesh is I trow real It is coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder a sacrament which is receiued by the mouth therfore the nature of Christs flesh is receiued by our bodies and not by faith alone Fulke And is the reall flesh of Christ mingled with his diuinitie what can followe thereof but confusion of the natures If that be hereticall then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse is not his reall flesh nor his reall diuinitie but the natural propertie as he termeth it afterward of his diuine flesh which is communicated vnto vs vnder a sacrameÌ„t As for your rotten reason that whatsoeuer is receiued vnder the sacrament is receiued by the mouth because the sacrament is receiued with the mouth is confuted before Iewel The truth hereof standeth not in any reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is a sacrament Sand. Hilarius saide wee receiue verily the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie you report him to say in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Fulke It is all one before God and al wise and honest men Sand. Well we receiue Christ verily vnder the sacrament and that sacrament is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verily receiue the flesh of Christs bodie vnder an outwarde figure which is the figure of bread although you meane the substance of bread Fulke There is both an outward sacrament and an inward mysterie S. Hilarie speaketh of the whole dispeâ—sation of the sacrament which is both outwarde and inward and not of the signe of bread onely or principally M. Iewel neuer confessed that the outward figure of bread although in some sense it be called a sacrament yet that it is the whole sacrament Iewell Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sort teacheth vs the purgation of the minde as Diony sius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sand. Saint Augustine saieth that must be eaten in the trueth it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the sacrament and not one thing outwardly taken and another thing inwardly as M. Iewel would haue it De verb. Apost Ser. 2. Fulk Are you such a bussarde that you cannot see the opposition betweene eating in a Sacrament and eaâ—ing in trueth visibly and spiritually I trow the reall substance of Christes bodie is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament but the breade which is so called because it is a sacrament thereof Iewell Although Christ be not bodily present yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie Sand. The substance of the mysterie must needes be hindred where it is absent Fulke Christ is not absent although not bodily present Sand. The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament Therfore Saint Hilarie saieth The naturall propertie by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect vnitie The naturall propertie is the naturall substance for so S. Hilarie vseth the word proprietas verie much for the substance and personall being of God Fulke So often that you can bring none example but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine Sand. These words can haue none other literal meaning but this The substance of Christ through the forme of bread wherin vnitie is figured is the sacrament of perfect vnitie Fulke Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall finde another literall sense more agreeable to the minde and purpose of Hilarie Sand. S. Hilarie saith There is no place to doubt of the trueth of flesh and bloude For nowe both by the profession of our Lorde himselfe and â—by our faith it is flesh in deede and bloude in deede Answere I pray you M. Iewel what is flesh in deed what is the nominatiue case to est I knowe none other beside the word sacramentum c. Fulk The more foolish Priest you For caro the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ of whose truth we ought not to doubt is by his profession and our faith flesh in deede and bloud in deede Sand. It is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thing for he saith immediately haec accepta these thinges taken and drunken doe bring to passe that both we may be in Christ and Christ in vs. Fulke You that could construe so pretily before do now forget your concords for haec accepta will not agree with sacramentum in number that should haue bâ—â—â— the nominatiue case to est And what can these thinges being taken haue relation vnto but to the flesh and bloud of Christ which immediately before was auouched to be flesh and bloud truely which being receiued maketh Christ to dwell in vs and vs in Christ. The outwarde thing that is receiued bringeth not to passe that Christ dwelleth in them that receiue it Wherefore the flesh and bloud of Christ are receiued inwardly not outwardly Sand. He saith further Christ himselfe is in vs by his flesh not by the meane of bread and wine Fulk Who saith otherwise Sand. And afterwarde he is beleeued to be in vs by the mysterie of the sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente himselfe tarying naturally in vs. Fulke This cannot be after the popish vnderstanding by which Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted Sand. He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians Si ergo nos c. If then we liue naturally according to the flesh by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can hee but haue the father naturally in himselfe according to the spirit seing he liueth for the father By which it appeareth that as the substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ So S. Hilarie meant that Christes natural substance by means of the sacrament receiued is within our owne persons Fulke Then Hilarie should meane that Christ
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke