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
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
the mediator with which she had nothing to doe as a mother but was esteemed of him as a woman who knew when it was conuenient for him to doe whatsoeuer were for the glorie of Gods kingdome to be done without her or any other bodies admonition Neither doe I charge her as Chrysostom in Ioann Hom. 20. Optabat enim c. For she wished that he might now winne the fauor of men and that she might be made more noble by the fauour of her sonne And perchance she was moued with some humane affection euen as his brethren when they saide shew thy selfe to the world being desirous by his miracles to winne themselues a fame Therefore he answered more sharpely what haue I to doe with thee woman my houre is not yet come For that he did reuerence his mother Luke doth testifie that he was subiect to his parentes and this Euangelist doth shew how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion For where his parentes did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD did offend nothing it was meete and necessarie for the sonne to be obedient neither could he deny obedience without greate perill Contrarywise when they desire an vnseasonable thing and that which would haue beene an hinderance to spirituall thinges Who is my mother and my brethren quoth he For as yet they had not such opinion of him as they ought but Marie after the manner of mothers thought she should haue commanded her sonne in all thinges by her authoritie c. But the councell of Trent saith Bristow sheweth that she had more neede of Christes grace then all other saints to preserue her from sinne But in the meane time she had no neede of his redemption for the remission of sinne who was appoynted to saue his people from their sinnes who came to seeke and to saue that which was lost both of the house of Israel and of the Gentiles so many as attained saluatiō So therefore howsoeuer Bristow scorneth at my diuinity I will still conclude that the virgin Mary beeing so principal a persō of Christs people was saued from her sinnes by the redemption of his bloode was lost but sought vp and saued by him Which diuinitie being taken out of the scriptures I trust is more commendable then the contrarie doctrine deriued from the Pelagians and defended by the Papistes The 10. poynt of mine ignorance is about the definition of an heretike whom I saide to be a man in the Church I haue shewed before that I distinguish betweene him that is in the Church and him that is of the Church a Papiste an Anabaptist may be in the Church but they cannot be of the Church except they repent Where I added vnto my definitiō that if any of vs can be proued obstinately to mainteine our opinion contrarie to the doctrine of the scriptures we refuse not to be counted heretikes Bristow saith they may say the like But the triall is all Bristow saith they bring plaine scriptures to proue that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions is the doctrine of the scriptures And we say the same that whatsoeuer the Apostles deliuered in speech they deliuered also in writing and neither contrarie to other But that all true doctrine necessarie to saluation is not conteined in the scriptures that you proue not neither that such things were of the Apostles deliuerie as you call traditions of the Apostles As for the particular poyntes you prate of concerning the time of the Churches persecution and Antichristes raigne haue beene answered in their proper places The wordes of Christ This is my body we acknowledge to be true in such sense as he spake them neither can you prooue that they importe your carnall Carpernaiticall presence what you hold of Iustification by workes Worshipping of Images Insufficiencie of Christes redemption Impeccabilitie of Marie c. contrarie to the expresse and plaine textes of the scripture it were out of place here o make rehersall The 11. is mine ignorance in wondring at Allen for saying that a christian scholer should first beleeue and after seeke for vnderstāding he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there haue I answered The 12. poynt proceedeth of like ignorance where I am said to wonder when I heare that the sacrifice of the masse is a likenesse of the sacrifice of Christs death vpon the crosse And then I am asked whether I know not that sacramentes are not likenesses of other thinges and Augustine is called to witnesse with much adoe as though it is all one to haue sacramentes which are similitudes of Christs death and to haue a sacrifice of similitude or likenesse which I saide truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that there should be any shadowes or resemblances when the body and substance it selfe is come which I spake supposing that Allen by likenes of the exemplar meaneth the masse with all the apish pageants thereof to be like the sacrifice of Christes death And indeede it was that monstruous saying of Allen which I wondered at By likenesse of the exemplar as indeede being in an other maner the verie selfe-same But Bristow setting a good countenance vpon so great an absurditie asketh what boy hath not hearde it saide of one the same man being changed by age sicknesse apparel shauing c. he is like or vnlike himselfe But tontrariewise what boy in Oxford or Cambridge would not reply that this similitude or likenesse or vnlikenesse is of two seuerall shapes and not of one and the same substance vnto it selfe as Allen saith the sacrament is like the body of Christ and is the very same in another maner that is vnder couerture of accidentes that belong to another kinde of substance But Bristowe is not so quicke to vnderstand me where I vnderstand not my selfe as he weeneth where I say neither will it helpe that Allen saith it is the selfesame in another manner so longe as the same respect remaineth I am sorie that Bristowe is so dull headed that he cannot vnderstand what the same respecte meaneth in opposition which if it not obserued in the thinges opposed they are not alwayes opposite and specially relatiues who hange altogether vpon respect But Bristowe asketh who can imagine that the verie same respecte remaineth when the same manner doth not remaine Why sir what is the respect of the likenesse of the sacrifice of the masse with the exemplar seeing you confesse the manner tobe vnlike but the verie identitie of the thing sacrificed which is the monster that I maruaile at as also that you cannot imagine the same respect where there is not the same manner Is not God the father of our Lord Christ in the same respect that Abraham is the father of Isaak but yet after a farre other manner yea to follow your owne wise examples is not Abraham father of Isaak in the same respecte when Isaak is yonge and when he is olde when he
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
your doctrine because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures But the faithfull you thinke for all that were not so straite laced but beleeued them vppon their owne worde both Christ and his Apostles because of the spirite of trueth that he sent to them And God be thanked we as faithfull men acknowledge without controuersie the spirite of trueth in Christ and his Apostles But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely sayeth Bristow but also to his Church after them for euer We doubt not but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church but not in such full measure as to his Apostles And if he had how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite but by tryall of the scriptures which were vndoubtedly written by the same spirite Bristow saith the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church at all times for the same spirite then the Apostles He must first proue the spirite so giuen to the Church that shee can no more erre in her decrees then the Apostles could in their writings Secondly if that were proued the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations which all boast of the spirite of trueth as much as the true Church And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirite but trye the spirites whether they be of God we knowe none so sure a triall as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures whether it be a multitude of men or seueral persons of one age or another of one degree or other that offreth to teache any doctrine which he or they pretende to haue of the spirite of God Last of all where I sayde Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth and therefore I wâ—y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe Bristowe noteth in the margent It is pryde to follow the fathers and humilitie to condemne them Whereto I aunswere to boast of the fathers to maintaine an olde errour is stinking pryde and it is not against true humilitie to make fathers and mothers and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde reuealed in the holy scriptures The second parte Being tolde that the question betweene vs is not as he maeketh it of the Scriptures authoritie but of the meaning howe there likewise against all the expositors he maketh the same exception of onely scripture requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture When in all this Chapter you deny onely scripture to be of soueraine authoritie sufficiency and credite to teache vs all the will of God are you not impudent to saye the question is not of the authoritie of the Scriptures But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning and not of the authoritie Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood bâ— on our side or on the auncient doctors side for the meaning of the scripture What then I aunswere the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie where some of the doctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes This aunswere I trust will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie After this he sayeth I count my selfe and my companions happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the coÌ„mentaries of doctors but as he troweth not without the coÌ„mentaries of Caluine But herein as in all things almost he belyeth mee for I neuer spake word against the reading of the coÌ„mentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition without weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places Likewise where I compare the whole heape of superstition errour out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill Bristowe noteth that I make the doctors writings a dunghill Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors as the sweeping of a faire house is meete to be cast on a dunghill Let Bristowe or Allen if he list say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors And yet it followeth not that the doctors writings are a dunghill more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse blindnesse c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scriptures where I sayde wee shalbe neuer the more certeine of the trueth whether wee challenge or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding the scriptures to the doctors Bristowe aunswereth whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree shall bee euer most certaine of trueth which is inoughe though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning Wee are then much the neere when the question is of the scriptures meaning if by the consent of the doctors we cannot be certaine of the scriptures meaning And if that trueth as we beleeue that all trueth is in the scriptures howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures Where I aunswere that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite as the doctors had although wee agree not with them in all interpretations euen as Cyprian and Cornelius were both indued with Gods spirite although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures Bristowe replyeth that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè though explicitè hee were of an erronious iudgement And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring because hee qâ—eâ—ly continueth in vnitie with them and doth not obstinately holde his error against them But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs for neither will wee bee reformed by them neither woulde they be reformed by Aâ—rius Iouinianus c. whom he calleth our forefathers If you haue no greater diuersitie then this the case will be all one for neither woulde Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade of Catholikes in their time as wee can make in this time although they woulde not bee reformed by Aerius an heretike yet charitie moueth vs to thinke they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Catholike Where I conclude that the harde places of scripture are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier adding the ordinarie meanes of witt learning c. adding that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may eaâ—ie bee deceiued Bristowe noteth a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman ought to bee ignoraunt in the 〈…〉 riptures
into the wildernesse at the comming of Antichrist is to become inuisible to the worlde Although this article bee not a matter of faith in controuersie betweene vs neither yet so affirmed of mee as though to bee in the wildernesse were nothing else but to bee inuisible to the worlde yet I will proue so much as I affirmed that the Church being in the wildernesse is inuisible to the worlde The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not is to them inuisible But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world inuisible Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the beginning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion Before I proue this it were reason you should tell how sone you meane or I said such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing shoulde bee And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christes seconde comming The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken vp to God and his throne the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wildernesse The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely obscurely described by dayes monethes 〈…〉 d yeares and generally by a time times and halfe a 〈…〉 e which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be in account of our yeres nor when 〈…〉 comming of Christ should be After this hee saith I triumph in lying when I af 〈…〉 me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely 〈…〉 ipture whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter as to prooue that the tryall of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to bee onely by scripture And 〈…〉 terwarde hee sayth playnely they refuse the tryall 〈…〉 onely scriptures but not by scriptures no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith because they refuse onely faith 〈…〉 here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one 〈…〉 in the minor of this argument The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee 〈…〉 led onely by the voyce of Christ therefore shee is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona 〈…〉 le man woulde haue vnderstoode onely in the maior 〈…〉 so seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled 〈…〉 y the voyce of an other man then her husbande or 〈…〉 hat will bee ruled by her selfe or take vppon 〈…〉 er to ouerrule her husbande I added also in the 〈…〉 inor which Bristow omitteth that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions and com 〈…〉 mitteth grosse idolatrie Ar. 99. Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas 〈…〉 mie for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemeÌ„t 〈…〉 he answereth it is al one as if I shold say the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will bâ— cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned being hiâ— selfe a fisherman and vnstable did misconster S. Pauâ— epistles c. to their owne damnation which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue that the Apâ— stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God 〈◊〉 contrarie to the scriptures in other places to iudge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture as the Popish Church doeth 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter being an Apostle indued with so mâ— ny graces was vnlearned because hee had beene a 〈◊〉 sherman Agayne where I sayde the Popishe Church ma 〈…〉 festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures when shee affirmeth that no booke 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonicall but so far foorth as sh 〈…〉 will allowe it This sayth Bristowe is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them manifestly reiâ—cted the whole c because they made a Canon or Câ—nons whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonicall wherevppon him selfe also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet proued for they may bee called the Canon and Canonicall because they are the certayne rule to directe 〈◊〉 matters of religion But admitte the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them in hauing the spir 〈…〉 of discretion made such a Canon to discerne true aâ—d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or writen by the spirite of man what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalengeth that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholomewe as of Mathew of Thomas as of Iohn c whereby it followeth that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas Where I sayde the popish Bishoppes durst not abyde the conference at Westminster first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase because I saide it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde as one that care not what I say In deede I 〈…〉 de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which woulde not take my wordes as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉 ght haue knowledge of it Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference in com 〈…〉 rison of the councell of Trent yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken but such as was well liked of by the Papistes 〈…〉 m selues vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no 〈…〉 dite Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell 〈◊〉 Trent being so solemnly honorably inuited with 〈…〉 h safeconductes c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for euer on your behalfes And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered I say it was to no purpose in such a 〈…〉 cke councell where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll partie that is accused of heresie shall be the onely 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples lawes equitie and reason Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole countrie I will not quarell at your phrase 〈…〉 t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie But nowe to the fourefolde offer wherein first you say that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande â—e compt you as you shew your selues to bee errant â—aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent we owe no more subiection 〈…〉
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
would haue nothing done in the celebration of the lords supper namely in ministring of the cup but that Christ himselfe did lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow answereth the he writeth against the Aquarians which offered water only wher as Christ offered wine which was clean against Christs doing And what is your sacriledge in robbing of the church of Christ of the whole cup is it not cleane contrary both to his doing his coÌ„maundemeÌ„t drinke ye al of this and such doing as he did for a tradition vnto vs when the Apostle rehersing that tradition reherseth drinking of the Lords cup by the lay as well as eating of the bread As for mingling wine with water which first was but a custome of sobriety after grew into a ceremonie if Cyprian should vrge of necessitie he might be answered by his owne rule Likewise where Chrysostom saith it was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy misteries a remembrance should be made of them that are departed I said we wil be bold to charge him with his owne sayings first Hom de Adam Heâ—a satis sufficere c. wee thinke it sufficeth ynough whatsoeuer the writings of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresaid rule insomuch that we count it not all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrary to the rules appointed By this Bristow seeth that I am a great reader of the doctors For whosoeuer made this homily saith he he took those words out of the instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus in the first tome of councels where the wordes are not the writings of the Apostles but the writings of the see apostolike which are thought sufficient Whatsoeuer my reading be for the maker of the Homily I cannot depose but I trust he will not deny but it hath in al printed books gone vnder the name of Chrysostom and it containeth nothing vnworthy the iudgement of Chrysostom It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoeuer gathered that instruction borrowed those words out of this homily and from the writings of the Apostles peruerted them to the writings of the see apostolike many such borrowing peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles For admit that not Chrysostom but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of that Epistle or instruction Why did he alter them if hee thought the writings of the apostolike see sufficient to approue all catholike doctrine except perhaps his copie had also apostolica scripta that copie which Peter Crab followed in gathering the councels is corrupted Certaine it is the homily is auncient and made in the time when the Pelagian heresie begun to spring which was in the later time of Chrysostom therfore I haue vsed no fraude or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms wherto Bristow maketh no answere but denyeth the authority Likewise wher I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow the Canon or rule of the holy scripture but permit al to their owne cogitations Bristow answereth nothing but that Chrysost. answereth heretikes which said our Lord took not ture flesh as though his seÌ„teÌ„ce is not general against al heretiks which go besid the scripture Thirdly I saide if we be further vrged we wil allege that he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a theese To this Bristow replyeth that I will call Chrysostom a theefe by his owne saying for vsing tradition yea verely if he be obstinate and why not as well as S. Paul or an Angel accursed if they bring an other Gospel Secondly he saith as though he vseth not scripture which vseth tradition or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I aunswere such tradition as is warraÌ„ted by scripture we refuse not but if al your traditions were warraÌ„ted by scripture wher should be your vnwritten verities Thirdly saith Bristow the thing that he speaketh of is that Antichrist Pseudochrists cannot shewe any commission out of scripture I answere that proueth the Pope to be Antichrist who neither for his authoritie nor for his doctrine can shewe any commission out of the scripture Fourthly I saide we may bee as bolde with Chrysostome as he saide he would be with Paul himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somwhat more wee must not be ruled by Paul himselfe if he speake any thing that is his owne and any thing that is humaine but wee must obey the Apostle when he caryeth Christ speaking in him Bristow asketh whether he spake onely by scripture No verily but by reuelation he spake to S. Paul by audâ—ble and humaine voyce hee spake to the rest of the Apostles and whatsoeuer hee spake any way pertaining to our instruction is committed to writing and therefore I beleeue not Chrysostom alledging a tradition of the Apostles which is not founde in their writings Another place of Chrysostom I cite in Luke Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bredde heresies Therefore hee woulde haue heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures We would the same saith Bristowe but what maketh this for onely scripture to be of authoritie yes forsooth If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures that which commeth not through ignorance of the scriptures is no heresie And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures commeth not of ignorance of the scriptures therefore he that knoweth the scriptures knoweth all truth Vnto Leo the great alledging custome and tradition I oppose his owne saying for onely Scripture to be sufficient Ep. 10. They fall into this follie which when they be hindred by some obscuritie to know the truth haue not recourse to the wordes of the Prophets nor to the writinges of the Apostles nor to the authorities of the Gospell but to themselues He doth not say saith Bristowe that all truethes are expressed in the Scripture For he blameth the heretike for not hauing recourse to our common Creede as though there were any thing in our common Creede which is not expressed in the Scripture And if onely Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscuritie howe could they be blamed for not hauing recourse vnto them for that which they cannot find in them The words of the councel of Constantinople the 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these If all men had simply and without calliditie from the beginning receiued the Gospels preaching and bene content with the Apostles institutions the matters verily had beene well a fine and neither the authors of heresies nor the fautors of the Priestes had bene put to the paynes of conflictes but because the diuell not resting rayseth vp his squires therefore Christe also in time conuenient hath raised vp his warriours against them to wit the general
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
Caluine c. Because I knowe not how Illyricus and such contentious persons as he expoundeth the annointing in Saint Iames but referre them to aunswere for them selues therefore I speake contrary to my selfe where I say they differ not in faith from the Lutherans 41 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian mans conscience Ar. 86. Contra The Church is the â—ay of trueth If that argument of the Church without triall which is the Church might take place it would serue you both for a sword and a bucklar The church saith it and we are the church Therefore it is true Pur. 367. It seemeth Bristowe is beside himselfe in coyning of contradictions These words The Church is the stay of truth for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place but his owne addition although in other sense I confesse the Church is the stay and piller of truth not that all is true which is alwaies in the Church but that truth can not be preserued on earth by the Church 42 Among the arguments that Augustine vseth against the Pelagians one though the feeblest of an hundred is that their heresie was contrarie to the publique praiers of the church Contra All other persuasions set aside hee prouoketh onely to the Scripture to trie the faith and doctrine of the church namely in beating downe the schisme of the Donaistes and the heresie of the Pelagians Where also he contradicteth him selfe againe in shewing the reason whie he argued against the Donatistes of only Scripture but against the Pelagians of the churches praiers also The Pelagians graunted them to be of the church that so praied And therefore when Augustine had to doe with the Donatistes that challenged the church vnto them selues he setteth all other trials aside and prouoketh onely to the Scriptures Let the readers iudge for I can not imagine where there be should be so much as the shadowe of a contradiction gathered out of these wordes except he meane that he which prouoketh onely to the scriptures may not vse an hundreth argumentes out of them yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures and yet stand onely vpon the auctority of the scriptures 43 We stand for autoritie only to the iudgemeÌ„t of the holy scriptures Pu. 432. Contra The ground that we haue to persuade vs of the authoritie of gods booke is because we haue most stedfast assuraÌ„ce of Gods spirit for the autoritie of that booke with the testimonie of the true church in alages The church of Christ hath a iudgement to discerne the word of God from the writings of men The primitiue churches testimonie of the word of God we allow and beleeue You should bring a great preiudice against vs and passing wel prouide for the credit of your cause the discredit of ours if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitiue pure church for the space of a hundreth yeares after Christe or something out of any Authenticall writer which liued within one hundred yeares after the Apostles age Ar. 9. 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39. 42. The first proposition as in the place quoted is manifest is spoken of questions of doctrine and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God The last sentence You should bring c. being patched out of two places of my booke Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition for although we stand for auctority onely to iudgement of the holy scriptures yet we are content to giue you this aduantage against vs if you can bring any thing out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead 44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without colour or couerture the onely right order of ministration Contra in the next line I knowe the Papistes will flee to those wordes of the Apostle The rest I will set in order when I come That is manifest to be spoken of matters of externall comelinesse and therefore say we of the order of ministration Pur. 362. In rehearsing my wordes he leaueth out fiue lines of my saying betwene the words Couerture and The onely right c. which declare that I speake of the essâ—ntiall order of ministration against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the hoast for the quicke and the dead both generally and particularly and a solemne prayer for all departed in Christ to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament 45 The olde Doctors neuer heard Purgatorie named nor praier for the deade Pur. 438. Contra About S. Augustines time the name of Purgatorie was first inuented And long afore that also Montanus had in all points the opinioÌ„ of the Papists c. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet againe Before Chrysostomes time it was but a blinde error without a head Pur. 356. My wordes are of the heresie of Purgatory and my meaning of those olde Doctors in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a punie being younger almost by 300. yeares in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inueâ—ted yet the heresie was elder in Montanus How prayer for the deade came into the Church it was vncertaine in Chrysostomes time and therefore I say it was a blinde error without a heade 46 In Saint Augustines time Sathan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatorie Pur. 54. Contra That error of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded vp in his time Pur. 161. And specially here cap. 3. pag. 14 saying And this I thinke is the right pedigree of praiers for the dead and Purgatorie where he putteth the very last generation of it to haue bene in S. Augustines time and the foundationlong afore Christes time It were a strange contradiction that could bee picked out of these two allegories laying the foundation and rifely budding seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building and budding is the first towardnesse of fruite As for the pedigree is not to the last generation as Bristow saith layed in Saint Augustines time but from the first auctor howe it was continued vnto Saint Augustines time since which there haue beene many dissents before popish Purgatory were throughly shaped and brought forth 47 M. Allen affirmeth that after mens departure the representation of almes by such as receiued it shall moue God exceedingly to mercy O vaine imagination for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor Pur. 242. 243. Contra Chrysostome alloweth rather almes that men giue before their death or bequeath in their Testament because it is a worke of their owne than that almes which other men giue for them howbeit also such almes are auaileable for the dead he saith Pur. 236. 237. That which Chrysostome speaketh of litle helpe wil not serue Allen to proue that almes shall moue GOD exceedingly to mercy 48 The auncient Doctors did holde the foundation Contra cap. 4 pag. 28. He
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
meate which abideth vnto eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once set downe which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth as to the meate which taryeth but being applyed to the meate which perisheth it cannot be turned Worke not the meare which perisheth as stuffe that is present but Labor not or seeke not for it as you doe which is absent therefore it must be so turned as it may serue for both And where as Sander saith that this meat is not laboured for because it is not sought out by our diligence but giuen by Christ it is a fonder reason except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges because all good thinges are the giftes of God Finally that you may see what a singular quarrelling vaine glorious person he is to seeke a knot in a rush you shal vnderstande that the papistes themselues translate this place euen as the great bible doeth namely Heskins as well learned a Papist as Sander lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified is ver 57. of the same chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The true English is He that eateth me he shal also liue for me The english bible readeth he that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me The best colour of his cauil is that propter patrem is translated in the same ver For the father Howbeit seing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter signifieth the efficient cause there is no fraude in turning it By the meanes of me which is the same that is meant by For me and as I thinke was so turned by the translators to shewe that For the father includeth not the finall cause as it might seeme but the eternall efficient cause of life As for the cauillation that a man may liue by meanes of him which is absent is altogether childish and ridiculous for who can vnderstande him to be absent which is eaten The controuersie is not of the presence but of the maner of the presence But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ He that eateth me shall liue by me or for me when they affirme that wicked men eate him which liue not by him for this is generally true of all that eate him and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily For the Sacrament in deede may be eaten vnworthily but Christ himselfe is not eaten but where he giueth life The 3. corruption obserued by Sander is vers 58. of Iohn 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth english it He that eateth of this bread The adding of this word Of may be the Printers fault for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying he that eateth of this breade vsed by Christ before verse 51. heere can bee no corruption or falsification prooued As for the distinction which Sander maketh betweene eating Christ and eating of Christ eating his flesh and eating of his flesh is friuolus and vaine for none eate of him but they which eate him Yes saith he Of him we may eate without the Sacrament but him selfe wee properly eate onely vnder the forme of breade Howe vntrue this is you may see by this argument None can haue eternall life except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloode But manie haue eternall life which eate not the Sacrament Therefore manie eate Christ and the fleshe of Christ which eate not the Sacrament Ioan. 6. ver 53. 57. The 4. falsification is in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm accepisset Iesus panem gratias egisset fregit dedit discipulis ait The true English is Iesus hauing taken breade and giuen thankes or blessed brake and gaue to the disciples and saide The common Bible readeth Iesus tooke breade and when he had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue i◠to the disciples The holy scripture saieth not that Iesus brake it neither that hee gaue it but that hee brake and gaue Againe in saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul fiue times putting the particle it which is neither in the Greeke nor in the Latine Bible Who woulde thinke that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly What say you Sander is not the particle it added neither in Greeke nor Latine When the accusatiue case is once set downe and then followe transitiue verbes is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue to adde the particle it You say he brake and gaue but not brake it nor gaue it Will you teach vs a newe Grammer that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues lest the wilde Irish boyes that goe to the Grammer schoole should hisse at you as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you and aske you what hee brake and what hee gaue If hee brake not and gaue not it which hee tooke If you say hee brake his bodie and not the breade because you say he so gaue his bodie that hee gaue no breade aduise your selfe howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body which was but once broken for vs on the crosse but yet not broken into seuerall peeces as that thing whatsoeuer you will call it was broken which hee gaue to his disciples And this vndoubtedly you meane when you say The wordes of saint Matthew doe not all stande in order in so much as Christ said the wordes of consecration before hee brake the sacrament or gaue to his disciples And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering the words Verily saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth And if all these Euangelists and Apostles doe set the words out of order whence come you that will take vpon you to set thē in order Haue you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order And if you had haue you forgotten what you did write euen nowe in the preface that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them But standing of the wordes out of order and that in euerie one that rehearseth them must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie yea this standing or not standing out of order may decide a great parte of the controuersie for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue then he brake and gaue breade And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes and saint Paul fauour this opinion you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses which had a care to place
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
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
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
But my ignorance is noted of Bristow for saying that superstition was riper in the Latine Church where the seate of Antichrist was appointed to be set vp not knowing that all the olde heresies haue spronge of the Grekes against whome were helde the first foure generall Councels A pithie reason shewing no lesse Logike then knowledge of the Churche storie Foure heresies were condemned by foure councels therefore all olde heresies sprong of the Grecians But I will aske of Bristowe whether Nouatus or Nouatianus captaine of the Nouatians was of the Latine or Greeke Church Iouinian Vigilantius are counted of him to be as great heretikes as Arrius and Macedonius but whence did they spring out of Greece or frō the Latines What shall I name the Donatistes Pelagians Celestians Priscillianistes al which sprange out of the Latine Church And yet it is true that Vincentius affirmeth that vntill the dayes of Stephanus the Bishoppes of the Romaine Church had alwayes earnestly defended the integritie of religion once receiued which he speaketh not as a singular prayse of that Church only for he saith of the same matter immediately before Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia All places are full of such examples And that which Bristow citeth out of Ruffinus in exp Symb that no heresie did spring at Rome is to be vnderstode onely of such heresies as he speaketh of before against the danger of which some clauses were added to the creede For otherwise Ruffinus could not forget what hee him selfe had translated out of Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 33. of Nouatus which being a Priest of the Church of Rome was author of the heresie of the Nouatians 2 What he sayeth of the whole Church in some of those times I say the practise of prayer for the dead is not generall because it is not to be founde in the most auncient times Bristow asketh if nothing be generall but that I finde as though he could find any thing for 200 yeares but in Tertullian the Montanist But the later practise for places he sayeth is generall if I should vrge him to proue it he could not do it I confesse it was common but for all the later time it was not generall The Waldenses for 500. of the last yeares practised it not and almost in euery age some are noted which regarded it not or denyed it 3. To what Origen he confesseth the doctors to referre it to witte vnto scripture and tradition of the fathers I confesse that some of the fathers referre the custom of praying for the dead to the Scriptures and some to the tradition of the Apostles but neither of both truely Bristowe compareth the case with fasting wherof Augustine sayeth that it is euidently commaunded in scripture but the dayes not prescribed So is prayer for the dead but the dayes times and particular prayers are referred to the tradition I aunswere when we see as good scripture for prayer for the dead as wee see for fasting we will say the cases are like How Tertullian denyed prayer and oblation for the dead to be taken out of the scriptures is referred to the ninth Chapter where it shall be answered But he is fayne to denye sayeth Bristowe the most certeine workes of the Apostles schollers Clemens Romanus and Dionysius Areopagita saying that we haue them of some counterfaiting knaue c. quoting for my saying Pur. 268. which I desire the reader to peruse and tell mee how honest a man he is that chargeth a man to say of the works of Clemens and Dionyse that which I speake onely and expressely of the counterfeit epistles of Clemens Concerning the change of the olde Liturgies we shall heare more in the sixt Chapter 4 He contraiewise feareth not nor basheth not to say they had it from the diuell and his lymmes I see no cause why I should feare or bash to affirme that all errours came from the diuell who is a lyer and the father of lyes Neither is it any absurditie to saye that the yerely oblations of thanksgiuing for the dead are heathenish as well as the oblations for the birthes But it is an impudent slaunder that he chargeth mine owne mouth to confesse that the whore of Babylon is the church at the farthest by S. Augustines time which hath patched vp her purgatory sacrifices for the dead for purgatorie and sacrifice for the dead was scarse hatched in S. Augustines time when Augustine him selfe confessed it might be doubted whether there be any such purging fire or no. 5. As touching the Popes supremacy Concerning the Popes primacy he chargeth mee to teach that the Church vanished quite away vpon a souden when Phocas sold the primacie to Bonifacius and yet no man then in the worlde that went out from the Pope The first point is a shamelesse slaunder for I neuer taught that the church vanished quite away the second is true if it be rightly vnderstood no man went from the Pope as from a true member of the church but the Pope rather went out of the church into an antichristian tyrannie But vnderstanding his saying to be that no man departed from the Popes authoritie it is vtterly false for notwithstanding the sale of Phocas the Greeke church neuer yelded to his supremacie The church of Rauenna in Italy long time after withstoode his tyranny and was separated from him in causa autocephalias that shee would haue no head ouer her but he◠owne bishop as the histories affirme Bristowe to excuse the Pope for doing contrarie to Gregories reproofe of the bishop of Constantinople sayeth that he neuer vseth the style of vniuersall bishop but of s 〈…〉 seruorum the seruant of seruants as though it was for the bare style and vsurpation of the title that Gregorie was so earnest and not for the vniuersall authoririe which was claimed by that style in which respect Gregory of humilitie the rest of his successors of hypocrisie called them selues seruants of the seruants of God Now at length Bristowe alledgeth three causes of this his tedious rehearsall of my sayings first that the reader may see in how many points we dissēt frō them whome we confesse to haue bene of the true church I answer so long as we agree in the foundation we are all of one church The second cause that the reader may see I confesse the Papistes to agree with them of the true church in the same A great glorie that you agree with them in a fewe errors and dissent in the most waightie matters of saluation Thirdly that I haue not for these points or any depēding of these iust cause to denye the Papists the true church c. If you erred onely in these points as they did holding all other trueth which those auncient fathers helde wee woulde no more deny you to be members of the true church than wee do them but seeing beside these errors you hold many blasphemous heresies which they neuer helde and
of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour whose fruite is forbidding of marrying eating of meates 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable for what cause of religion so euer it be And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists than against those open blasphemers But howe proueth Bristowe that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites Forsooth because Augustine sayeth Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint vt propria nulla possideant ab esâ—a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius Philaster verò hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam Some say that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie but onely such as conteine from marriage and haue so renounced the world that they possesse no proper goods yet Epiphanius sayeth not that they abstain from eating of flesh but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence The similitude which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites is onely in the abstinence from marriage and meates and possessions not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained For seeing Aerius was an Arrian he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance And although he were the scholer of Eustachius yet it followeth not that he held all pointes as his maister did Augustine chargeth him to haue added these matters of his owne Beside that diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists concerning the marriage of priestes and the abstinence from meates howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry and hope to them that eate fleshe yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write that they which be marryed be in the flesh and cannot please God Ep. ad Him Tarrat And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited all the world doth know 4 Of Ceremonies and Liturgies The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued Bristowe quarreling that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth Tamen ecclesia c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life And I reply notwithstanding that they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle Quamuis enim c. For although neither this can be founde howe they are against the faith yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens which the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable which although they haue not knowen the time of libertie yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens not to humaine presumptions But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine that if the whole church vse any thing it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question whether that should be so vsed I answere wee speake of approuing of vsages not of any thing that is generally vsed The church is S. Augustines time approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent without open abrogation which yet were diuerse in diuerse places Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason that many of them are abrogated he answereth that is no good argument for there might be good cause to abrogate them although they came of the tradition of the Apostles as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded To the former decree I reply that it was temporall and not meant by the makers to be eternall but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both although for necessitie of health a nightcap kercheffe or such like couering according to the custome of the country be not absolutely prohibited As for the forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees which might be abrogated nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe so 〈…〉 et it passe although I knowe not what he meaneth to say that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies is neuer denied of me but fondly alledged of him which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued as commaundements of the scripture referring euery blynde ceremonie whereof he knoweth none author to tradition of the Apostles Nowe concerning the Liturgies he sayth Proclus answereth why Basil Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them he sayth forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames which was too loÌ„g for the peoples cold deuotion But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome to be counterfeits for ther is small difference in the length of them and in a manner none at all As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome but that proueth not these which we haue at this day to be the same seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour Nicholas the bishop in Chrysostome which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death But that prayers for the dead were vsed in the ancient Liturgies that were before Chrysostomes tyme Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries memorie should be made
of the diuine scripture admonishing vs and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners and we shal come vnto that fire in which of what sort euery mans work is the fire shall trie And as I thinke it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire Although one be Paul or Peter yet he commeth to that fire But they that are such do heare Although thou passe through fire the flame â—hal not burn thee But if any be a sinner like me he shal â—ome in deede vnto that fire as Peter Paul but he shall â—ot so passe through it as Peter Paul More of his geâ—eral purgation of al men and not the damned onely you â—ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo c. Thou seâ—st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life hath neede of purification c. yet saith Bristow that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour there is no word which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely for thus he writeth in the same place Sunt alia c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all in which it doth not falsely accuse him neither can be so excused by his defenders especially coÌ„cerning purgation deliueraÌ„ce and againe after long time the reuolution vnto the same euils of euery reasonable creature I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of euery reasonable creature speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also wherefore it is manifest that Origen erred not only about hell heauen and the purgation of the damned but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument as he doth in scorne There is no such Purgatorie as Origen Carpocrates would haue therefore there is no purgatorie at all But what should Carpocrates come in this title but for a sorie sophisme wheÌ„ we speake of Origen onely Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely it should be thus There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour such as Origens fire is the fire that the papistes would haue therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue Releeuing of the dead by prayer If the dead be not releeued we say quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation And for this saying hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is a purgation either of the man or of the worke Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that whereof hee saith nothing at all euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable I shewed by that of the most auncient writers The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead with inuocations and to redeem them with oyle balme and water and inuocations said ouer their heades as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus Nowe commeth Bristowe and in many needelesse words rehearseth other partes of their heresie with their manner of seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them by a counterfait marriage and baptisme and by anoynting with balme c. concluding that this practise of theirs maketh as much against true baptisme solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead anealing or anoynting c. Likewise might they conclude that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention from that which is the ordinance of God And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention but by the holy scriptures Separating therefore baptisme and marrying which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures from the rest that haue no ground in the same prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters were the inuention of heretikes Howbeit saith Bristowe of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde No was Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much could not see that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt c. Other there be that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing powring on their heads oyle water or the foresaid oyntment with water and with the foresaid inuocations c Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead which they vttered before for the liuing But if the Heracleonites should faile mee I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of the Papistes because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist and especially in his booke de anima That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes Bristow wil not denye But he asketh whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes Howe then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus from that which he hath common with the catholike church I deliuered a rule euen nowe concerning the practise of the Heracleonites Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures but they are found in a disciple of Montanus therfore they stinke of Montanisme Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike there is no mention of prayer for the dead or suffering after this life of the faithfull Last of all Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly that Paracletus the comforter by which he meant the spirite of Montanus had reuealed very often that euery small offence must be punished after this life in that the soule of any except martyrs shall not go immediatly into Paradise but tarie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church Which saying sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by
so farre forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them alâ—â—ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the â—criptures After this he gathereth that I place all in a mans owne 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men but to reade the scriptures 〈…〉 onferre the places and so gather the meaning by him selfe So that with him it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my 〈…〉 ule Magnificè igitur salubriter c. Magnificallye â—herefore and wholesomely the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures that with open places hee â—ight satisfie hunger with darke places he might wype â—ff lothsomnesse for nothing in a manner is brought â—ut of those obscurities which may not bee founde in â—ome other place most plainely spoken It is nothing â—hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scripâ—ures by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the interpretors But if diligence may doe so much hee telâ—â—th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semiâ—arie for Englande vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen which prooueth it selfe to bee a semiâ—arie of treason in much reading and conferring of the scriptures with all other helpes and meanes whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee by mine owne rule No Bristowe not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe without the extraordinarie grace of God shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth which they seeke not in them but the confirmation of their preiudicated erronious and hereticall opinions There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding and in the ende concludeth Non enim sensi 〈…〉 c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense without the scriptures that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts to be proued against vs wheÌ„ we see the booke wee will shewe you our iudgement In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour then you in vaunting of it before it come forth I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome nor honestic The 3. part What he meaneth by his onely scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture I meane by onely scripture what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as expresse wordes For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe say I may be prooued by scripture either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion which is all one Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade Bristow saith I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession The scripture it self that I except against by calling for Canonicall scripture is the booke of Machabees which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres The 4. part What great promises he maketh to bring most euident scriptures against vs and also by scripture to proue his sense of the scripture Triumphing also before the victorie and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture but reiect the Scriptures where 〈…〉 n a fourefold offer is made vnto him Before he rehearse my words of promise he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shewed me first to admitte no eui 〈…〉 nce that they alledge but scripture onely both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture 〈…〉 at euidence I admit and howe farre hath beene shew 〈…〉 before more at large in my answere to his motiues 〈…〉 d demaunds Secondly he saith I admitte no scripture 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall though I graunt 〈…〉 o haue the confirmation of the same true Church which 〈…〉 oueth me as the holy ghost to receiue the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical This he speaketh for the Machabees 〈…〉 oke which although I denie to bee canonicall yet I 〈…〉 uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch neither yet euer had it againe where he saith 〈…〉 e true Church moueth me as the holy ghost to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonicall hee doth mee 〈…〉 onge for the Church moueth not me as the holy ghost 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of mouing the holye Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moueth mee the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse Thirdly hee saith I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonicall vnlesse it make so expressely so plainely so manifestly so necessarily with them that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded This proposition being in the copulatiue is false for I admit arguments taken either out of the expresse and plaine words of scripture or of collection necessarily concluding Let him make a newe logike if hee will haue me admitte argumentes that doe not conclude necessarily Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter Then folâ—oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme â—hat by the grace of God I am able to proue euery arti 〈…〉 e of faith that wee holde against the papistes by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures Bristowe saith in the next chapter I shall haue ynowe yet if 〈◊〉 will one article shall be this That Antichrist is not one certaine person That I shall easily proue thus One certaine person is not many Antichrists there haâ—â— beene manie therefore Antichriste is not one certaine person The minor is saint Iohn Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers 18. Againe Antichrist is hee whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely 1. Iohan. 2. vers 22. Againe Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe is the spirite of Antichrist but this is not the spirite of one certaine person ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person The whoore of Babylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person An other article that hee requireth me to proue is That the Churches flying
not say that S. Paul might be deceiued in his writings epistles no more may the Church be I answere if S. Paul had proceeded further in prophecying then according to such knowledge as he had by reuelation argumentation out of the scriptures he might haue erred That he did not erre in his writings it was not because it was impossible for him to erre but because he did write nothing but that he had either by reuelation of Iesus Christes spirit or by argumentation out of the holy scriptures And therfore except the church haue such warrant as the Apostles elders had by reuelation the Scriptures Act. 15. she cannot truely say It hath beene thought good to the holy ghost vs. The 3. text is Ar. 88. where I saye It is true that S. 〈…〉 gustine saith euen the whole Church is taught to say 〈…〉 ry day Forgiue vs our trespasses But why so saith 〈…〉 stow because the whole Church doth erre in her de 〈…〉 minations euery day It were ridiculous so to say 〈…〉 t Augustine speake for vs both Propter quasdam igno 〈…〉 tias infirmitates membrorum suorum for certaine ig 〈…〉 rances and infirmities of her members The whole 〈…〉 urch for the ignorance of her members must say for 〈…〉 ue vs our debts but the whole Church neede not say 〈◊〉 except she may be deceiued through the ignorance of 〈…〉 r members therefore the whole church may be decei 〈…〉 d Apostles and al which did not erre in their writings 〈…〉 d determinations because it was impossible for them 〈◊〉 to doe whatsoeuer they had written or determined 〈…〉 t because in their writings and determinations they 〈…〉 ere directed by such reuelation as they had according 〈◊〉 the holy scriptures The 4 text is that the whole synagogue did erre but 〈…〉 ot the Church of Christ and that but in a fact not in 〈…〉 octrine nor the whole synagogue but a peece onely 〈…〉 hich was the example of Dauid carying the Arke of 〈…〉 od vpon a newe Chariot which should haue ben cary 〈…〉 d vpon mens shoulders 1. Chron. 13. So that there be no 〈…〉 sse then three walles saith Bristow betweene the Church 〈…〉 nd your shotte But by the grace of God I will shewe 〈…〉 hat they are al but paper walles that are erected against the trueth of â—od to binde it to the persons or places of men First saith Bristowe it was the synagogue and not the Church of Christ. Why Bristow was not the Church of Christ before Christ came into the flesh at least remember that S. Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. Al our fathers were baptised and communicated with the bodie and bloude of Christ or else finde vs some other way of saluation then in the bodie of Christ whose member whosoeuer is not is sure of damnation or say that the Iewes being the members of the bodie of Christ were not the Church of Christ. The second wal that this was a fact and no doctrine is soone blowne downe if wee doe consider that the fact had neuer beene attempted but that it was tho 〈…〉 lawfull and Godly which was an error in doctrine The thirde wal is That the whole synagogue erred noâ— For he did not consult with the priest saith Bristow w 〈…〉 with his Tribunes Centurions nobles but onely w 〈…〉 the Lordes temporall hereupon he noteth my be 〈…〉 ly blindnesse but much rather may I note his m 〈…〉 strous and more then beastly impudence where the 〈◊〉 according to his own vulgar translation addeth to th 〈…〉 whom he nameth Et ait ad omnem coeâ—um Israel and 〈◊〉 the whole congregation of Israel If it please you quoâ— he and if the motion be of God let vs sende vnto 〈◊〉 rest of our brethren in all the coastes of Israel and 〈◊〉 the priestes and Leuits which dwell in the suburbs of the ciâ—ies that they may be gathered vnto vs c. These saith Bristowe were as you woulde say the hedge priestes Very well ergo all the heade priestes were present For otherwise howe coulde it be a perfect congregation of Israel where there wanted the principall members of the priests and Leuites for their tribe and degree And when he saith let vs sende to the rest of our brethren and those which he sent to of that degree were none but 〈◊〉 it were hedge Priestes as Bristowe affirmeth who will doubt but the chiefe Priestes were present except hee thinke they were not brethren vnto the rest But three monethes after saith Bristowe hauing founde out his error he gathered not onely all Israel â—â—d Ierusalem but also the sonnes of Aaron Sadoc and Abiathar c. 〈◊〉 though they were no part of Israel But these saith Bristowe he gathered as two Bishoppes and six other as it were Archdeacons and said vnto them You that are the heades of the Leuiticall families prepare your selues with your brethren and bring the Arke of our Lorde God of Israel to the place which is dressed for it least that as before because you were not present our Lord did smâ—te vs so nowe also it happen for our vnlawfull doing The words that Bristowe taketh holde off in his vulgar translation are that these principall priestes and Leuâ—tes were not present which as before it is proued 〈…〉 e so are they not in the Hebrew text LO ATTâ—M No◠〈…〉 the verbe is vnderstood which is in the senteÌ„ce before 〈…〉 t omitted which now they were commaunded to do 〈…〉 t is to carie the Arke So the sense is because you did 〈◊〉 carie it and not because you were absent For beside 〈…〉 t hath beene saide before of all the cheefe Priestes in 〈…〉 nerall howe coulde it be saide that Aminadab one of 〈◊〉 sixe was absent when the Arke was first brought 〈…〉 t of his house who if he had not ben deceiued should 〈…〉 ue tolde the king of his error before The 5. text is Ar. 86. where I say the true and onely 〈…〉 rch of Christ can neuer be voide of Gods spirite and yeâ— she◠〈…〉 y erre from the trueth and be deceiued in some thingeâ— â—uen 〈…〉 there is no true Christian man that is voide of Gods spirite ye◠〈…〉 y euery true Christian erre c. This my sophisme saith 〈…〉 istowe consisteth in speaking confusely of Gods spi 〈…〉 e as though the gift of it were one in the whole church 〈…〉 d in euery particular true Christian man But I say 〈…〉 t cleane contrarie to that he chargeth me I distin 〈…〉 ish of the gift of the spirite of God concerning adop 〈…〉 n that is in euery one of the faithfull by which hee 〈◊〉 priuiledged from erring vnto damnation and the 〈…〉 rite of trueth which is not giuen in such measure ei 〈…〉 r to the whole Church or to euery member but that 〈…〉 ey may erre in some thinges though not finally in 〈…〉 atters necessarie vnto saluation As for the promise 〈…〉
ohn 14. ver 16. of the comforter euen the spirit of truth to remaine with vs for euer and to leade vs into al truth If the later bee not restored to the Apostles howe can Bristowe proue that it must needes bee vnderstoode of 〈…〉 e whole Church onely and not of euery member s 〈…〉 g our sauiour Christ Iohn 17. prayeth not onely for 〈…〉 is Apostles but for all and euery one that should be 〈…〉 eeue in him through their preaching that they might 〈…〉 e sanctified in the trueth which is the worde of God â—nd eueÌ„ in the verie place cited Iohn 14. ver 15. promiseth 〈…〉 he comforter the spirite of trueth to euerye one 〈…〉 hat beleeueth in him And as he sent his spirite to leade 〈…〉 he Apostles into all trueth so his Apostles fayled not to deliuer that trueth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subiect to forgetful 〈…〉 and corruption then the other Wherefore the Church 〈◊〉 called the piller of trueth 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil 〈…〉 vpon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles Ep 〈…〉 2. which had the whole trueth of the gospel reuealed 〈◊〉 to them not because the Church shoulde haue the spirite of trueth to reueale any trueth vnto her which w 〈…〉 not reuealed to the Apostles and by them as well iâ— their writings as in their preachings So that the sa 〈…〉 gift of the spirite being in the whole Church that is iâ— euerie member and distinct from the gift of the spirite in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing the argument by me set downe is sound no sophisme at all 2 That the Church may be diuorced I neuer saide that the true Catholike church of Christ may be diuorced from him but the visible particular Church of some place time as the prophet Esay complaineth that the church of Ierusalem by idolatrie superstition had separated her selfe from Christ was refused of him Esa. 1. How is the faithfull citie become an haâ—lot c. And so may the prophet say to the church of Rome Brist asketh whether the prophet do say so to Rome yea â—erely For the idolatrie of Rome is nothing lesse in this time then it was in his time of IerusaleÌ„ But I am too too ignorant Bristow saith in the scriptures if I know not herein the difference betweene the synagogue of the Iewes and the Church of Christ to wit that the synagogue with her IerusaleÌ„ might shuld be diuorced but the Church of Christ with her Ierusalem which is Rome saith Bristow if you haue any sight in the Actes of the Apostles should neuer nor neuer might be diuorced c. If mine ignorance be so great why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me that the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation consisting of the Gentiles may not as wel be separated from him as the Church of Christ before his incarnation consisting of the Iewes As for 〈◊〉 diuorcement you imagine of all the whole on the 〈…〉 th it neuer was ne shal be Againe that Rome is the 〈…〉 usalem of the Church of Christ where finde you in 〈…〉 c Acts of the Apostles which haue so good sight in 〈…〉 em I gesse this is your argument S. Luke beginneth 〈…〉 s storâ—e at Ierusalem and endeth at Rome ergo Rome the Ierusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you 〈…〉 n proue the consequens of this argument I wil say as 〈…〉 ou say In the meane time I say there is small likely 〈…〉 od that Rome should be the Ierusalem of the Church 〈…〉 f Christ seeing Peter being at Rome is not once meÌ„ti 〈…〉 ed in all the Actes of the Apostles nor in any other 〈…〉 ooke of holy scripture But if you had as great sight 〈◊〉 the Epistle to the Galathians as you imagine your 〈…〉 lfe to haue in the Actes of the Apostles there might 〈…〉 ou learne Cap. 4. that the Ierusalem of the Church of â—hrist is not Rome on earth but Ierusalem which is a 〈…〉 oâ—e which is the mother of vs all As for the reiecting 〈…〉 f the Iewes and calling of the Gentiles euen vntill the 〈…〉 lnesse and the restoring of the Iewes of which you pro 〈…〉 hecy without the booke that they shal be al Christened in 〈…〉 e end of the world are matters impertineÌ„t to this que 〈…〉 tion of the visible Churches diuorcement 3 That euen the Church of Christ shoulde prepare the way 〈…〉 o Antichrist This saith Bristow is a straunge imagination of him and his fellowes It is the totall summe of all their new diuinitie yet no warrant at all they haue for it out of the scripture But I pray you Bristowe who euer saide that the Church of Christe prepared the way to Antichrist I said Ar. 35. Manie abuses entred into the Church of Christ immediately after the Apostles time which the diuel planted as a preparatiue for antichrist Do I not here plainely say the diuell planted them as a preparatiue Againe Ar. 38. I saide The scripture telleth vs that the mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and reuelation of Antichrist wrought euen in S. Paules tim 〈…〉 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth that general is my worâ— and not saint Paules I confesse but it is S. Paules m 〈…〉 ning which speaketh not of a small or particular but 〈◊〉 that great and generall defection which in other pa 〈…〉 of scripture is foreshewed to bee from Christ vnto Antichrist Apoc. 13. 17. and yet not so generall but th 〈…〉 Christ shall haue his Church still vpon earth Secondlâ— he demaundeth whether the scripture tell me that it wrâ—ugâ— in the Church of Christ and aunswereth himselfe no wordâ— so 〈◊〉 wrought in the persecuters c. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so Is open persecution a mysteâ—iâ— of iniquitie You say better in the seducers and where began the seducers but in the visible Church although they be no members of the true and Catholike Churchâ— That our heresie is the last or next the last before the reuelation before you goe about to shewe as you promise you must proue it to bee an heresie otherwise then the religion of Christ was or the Infidels Iewes Gentileâ— called an heresie That the Church of Christ is alwayes a conâ—empâ—ible companie I neuer saide so but after diuerse authorities and reâ—sons brought to shewe howe the worlde accounteth of the Church I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in thâ— sight of God and his sancts is most glorious and honorable so in the sight of the worlde it hath alwayes beene most base and contemptible To the scriptures I alledge 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the crosse and Christ crucified thereon which are all the glorie of the Church are condemned of the worlde
vp and as it were couer the face of the earth and so compasse the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie that therfore the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie is as large and as many in number as their enimies when experience proueth the contrary at this daye if all that be baptized were true Christians and the Church of Christ yet are they nothing in multitude in comparison of the Turkes and Infidels wherfore for any thing that is here shewed the Church should be inuisible to the worlde when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyrannie Namely of their church and of ours by conference of places that are about Antichrist That neither Antichrist nor the apostasie agreeth to Bonâ—face the third Being demaunded Ar. 35. what yeare the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed I answere that although many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church of Christ immediatly after the Apostles time which the diuell planted as a preparatiue for his eldest sonne Antichrist yet we may well saye that the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed that yeare in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation which was 607. when Boniface the third for a great summe of money obteined of Phocas the murthering Emperour that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the church which diuelish heresie increased vntill the yeare of our Lorde 1414. when the councell of Constance decreede that â—acrilege of the communion in one kinde Likewise Ar. 16. After I had shewed the persecution of the true Church vntill Constantine and soone after by the Arrians then the ouerthrowe of the Empire by the barbarous hereticall idolatrous nations I conclude But when Mahomet in the East and Antichrist the Pope in the West seduced the world with most detestable heresiâ— then was fulfilled that which was reuealed to S. Iohn Apoâ— 12. The woman clothed with the Sunne which is the Church was so persecuted by the dragon that shee fled into the Wildernesse there tâ— remaine a long season These sayings of mine Bristowe rehearseth cut off in the wast as though I referred the dragons persecution only to the Pope which I say plainly began before but was most perfect concerning the apostasie in the raigne of the popish Antichrist Againe he sayeth I doe apply this prophesie onely because of the Popes primacyâ— which is false but because of his false doctrine and heresie also For that he sayeth the Popes primacie is a trueth of the Gospell and practised before Bonifacius â—he referreth vs for proofe to Saunders tray terous booke of Monarchie and I for aunswere will send the reader â—o my ouerthrowe of his Romish Rocke The suppoâ—ed contradictions I referre alwayes to the proper place Cap. 11. But O sir where is the Scripture that you promised â—o bring so cleare c. sayth Bristowe Sir my promise was for articles of doctrine in controuersie between vs â—nd not for the fulfilling of euery prophesie which the â—ffect must better expound oftentimes then the words But furthermore sayth Bristow you make shewe of a â—ext which is against you and vse most detestable falâ—ification saying the Church should remaine in the wildernesse a long season but the text is cleane contraâ—y a very short season Say you so Bristowe where haue you these wordes in the text a very short season But you haue 1260. dayes and a time two times and â—alfe a time And can you tell vs the length of these â—imes or of the dayes either In the weekes of Daniell â—nto whome you referre the exposition of the two times for you haue not two times but times indefinitely in the reuelation the propheticall dayes are as long as common yeres As for the time two times and halfe a â—ime who is able to define the length of them But by Scripture you will proue a very short season and first you iumble together two diuerse prophecies of Apoc. 12. 20. of the loosing of Satan for a short season Why man short and long be Relatiues The time of Satans loosing is short in comparison either of the long time that he was bound or of the long and eternall time in which he shall remaine in perpetuall bondage For though Antichrist raigned in open reuelation and not in mysterie of iniquitie onely by the space of 807. yeares more or lesse and yet be not vtterly consumed but yet in his consumption Neuerthelesse for a whole 1000. yeares after Christ the gospell of saluation continued in the church though much defiled with superstition yet sounde in the onely foundation Christe openly testified by sundry publike teachers vntill Syluester the seconde Anno Domini 1000. by the diuell him selfe as euen the Popish stories confesse was put in possession of the See of Rome then was the church driuen into greater straightes then euer before the doctrine of saluation being turned into idolatry and blasphemie But it is monstrous that Bristow expoundeth the consummation of the 1000. yeares by the gospell speaking of the consummation of the worlde Matt. 24. Marke 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and Ierusalem with the ende of the worlde And where he citeth Matth. 42. staâ—iâ—â— post streight after the persecution of those short dayes considering that from the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the ende of the worlde so many hundreth yeares are passed he might learne at the lest not to measure the length and shortnesse of times by mens reckonings but to remember that with the Lorde a thousand yeres are as a day and a day as a thousand yeares 2. Pet. 3. His other patching of Centones like Valentinians in steede of conserence of scripture because they consist of his onely assertion without reason or authoritie I neede not to confute As that the dayly sacrifice which Daniel prophecieth should be taken awaye by the death of Christe Daniel the 9. 12. he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the Masse By the which â—aint Paul prophecied that wee shoulde announce our â—ordes death as though Saint Paul spake that of a saâ—rifice and not expresse of eating that bread and drinâ—ing that cuppe of the Lorde Like wise speaking of the abomination of desolatiâ—n he sayeth Daniel agreeth with the gospell the â—pocalips where he sayeth Daniel 12. From the time â—hen the dayly sacrifice shal be taken away and the abâ—omination set vp for desolation dayes 1290. Blessed is 〈…〉 e that expecteth and cometh to dayes 1335. What agreement is betwene 1260. dayes and these two numâ—ers beside that Daniel 9. the Angel sheweth that â—he abhominatian of desolation in the temple and the â—esolation shall continue euen to the consummation â—nd end Last of all he will prooue that the season is short â—ut of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians that they be not troubled as though the â—ay of the Lorde were then instant for Antichrist must â—irst be reuealed And
of parents murtherers ince 〈…〉 uous persons remouers of their neighbours markes oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers c. and generally against all transgressours of the Lawe vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned â—n the same wordes ' that it is to the rest Marke also where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse proâ—eth all them that bee vnder the lawe to be subiectâ— vnto this curse howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous but continuing vnder the Lawe they may auoyde eternall death And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle is not meant of Christians I woulde knowe of him whether the Galathians to whome saint Paule writeth were not Christians but yet seduced by false Apostles to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe which as it was impossible so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ vnto the curse of God That true Christians are discharged of this curse it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction and not that the sinnes themselues deserue not euerlasting death though they bâ—â— neuer so small of their owne nature by the sentence of Gods curse which is a iust rewarde for transgression Heb. 2. The two other places that I cite for this purpose The soule that sinneth shall dye Ezech. 18. and the rewarde of sinne is death Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consummate gendreth death as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne not brought into acte to deserue death because shewing that the cause of mens destruction iâ— in themselues from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death Our sauiour Christe saith this is condemnation that light is come into the worlde and men haue loued darknes rather then light Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also of this place to conclude that condemnation perteineth not to men but where the light offered is refused or that if Christ had not come none had ben condemned Iohn 3. and likewise yea much rather wher Christ saith If I had not come and spoken vnto them they shoulde not haue had sinne Iohn 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement before Christ came But let vs examine his reason It is sinne saith he as soone as it is gendred but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred Therefore some sinne there is that gendreth notd eath The minor is false for Sainct Iames saying that sinne consummat gendreth death doth not say that sinne gendreth not death so soone as it is gendred But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the scripture hee addeth also an exception vnto sinne consummat that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death except the matter bee of weight accordingly For els that the lightnesse of the matter as an idle worde bringeth not death hee sufficiently signifieth in saying that in a weightie matter the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not These are his wordes by which you may see that without all shame hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames as hee can finde neuer a worde in hiâ— sounde like such 〈◊〉 saying But this is the manner of heretikes which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture and to inforce the wordes thereof against all equitie to signifie and say whatsoeuer it pleaseth them Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death I will proue out of his owne saying by this argument Whosoeuer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements deserueth eternall death Whosoeuer offendeth in one is guiltie of all therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one deserueth eternall death The maior I truste you will graunt The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and offende but in one pointe hee is guiltie of all Then seeing euerie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe as Sainct Iohn affirmeth Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes but also small sinnes wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake for bee the sinne neuer so small it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes which reason the Apostle vseth to prooue that hee which offendeth in one is guiltie of all And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe sufficiently proue that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall Whether after sinne remitted payne may remayne That God remitteth the punishment with the fault in respect whereof the punishment is due I proue by Ezek. 18. 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences that truely turneth vnto him bringing forth the fruits of repentance Bristow saith this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment whereby it would ensue that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet Psal 24. 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth and Lorde remember not our olde sinnes which are the prayers of the penitent to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes which once obtained they say The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs as farre as the East is from the West Psalme 102. That may bee saith Bristowe in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment I will proue that to bee false To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West is as farre as may bee but not to bee remoued from temporall punishment is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West But the whole Psalme saith Bristowe is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fauour by absolution but of our finall restitution which shall bee at the later day What can bee saide more absurdly Thankes are there giuen to GOD not onely for spirituall benefites but also for temporall The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them is there set forth which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth and East from West As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church vppon the feaste of Christs ascension to proue that it pertayneth altogether to the later day is as good as it is true â—hat the wordes there spoken are onely of our finall â—estitution at the later day To the example of the publican hee aunswereth â—hat there is no more saide but that hee went home â—ustified
called them to washing called them to baptisme so manye hundreth yeares before baptisme was instituted Is it not therefore euident that hee calleth them to repentaunce Or else hauing first so grieuously accused them of their present sinnes doeth he shewe no comfort but in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme which no man liuing could then possibly obteine in such manner as you meane no not the Prophet him selfe I might well say to you as you say to mee in another place In good sooth Dauus these things are not aptly diuided according to their times And that Christ Iohn 13. speaketh not of the ceremonie of baptisme it iâ— manifest by diuerse reasons but of his grace by which he washeth vs from all our sinnes And therefore be sayth to Peter except he were washed of him he coulde haue no part with him But neither Peter nor any other was or is baptised of him with water Iohn 4. therfore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptisme And where you adde that he which is so washed must neuerthelesse wash his feete that is say you his veniall sinnes which he committeth afterwarde although he continue withall in the cleannesse of baptisme before he be all cleane and aske mee what if he dye before he wash his feete Admitting that the feete should signifie none but veniall sinnes I aske you againe who shall wash his feete but he which washed Peters feet for the true text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath no neede but that his feete be washed Peter could not wash his owne feete in this figuratiue signification but except Christ did wash him he could haue no part with him But if we should take the feete onely for veniall sinnes and the generall washing for baptisme this inconuenience would follow of Christes wordes that he which is baptised and purged from veniall sinnes neede no purgation to clense him from mortall sinnes but is perfectly cleare The wordes of our sauiour are generall cannot admitt your exception of continuing in the cleannesse of baptisme therefore the feete signifie all sinnes to be pardoned after the first grace purging vs which is in deede represented and ratified in baptisme but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament and often times deuided For Iudas of whome you speake if he had dyed immediatly after he was baptised should not haue gone to heauen as one throughly washed or clensed by â—aptisme Where the Papists vrge the saying of Dauid Psal. â—1 Amplius laua me c. Wash me more from mine inâ—quitie Bristow saith I haue nothing to answeare but â—hat it was at Gods hand and by the meanes of Christes â—lood that he prayed to be clensed Purg. 97. 78. Whether I haue nothing else to say let the readers of â—hose places iudge But that which I here saye taketh aâ—ay Purgatorie and all satisfaction of mans merite alâ—hough Dauid as all the faithfull do pray that they may â—aily more and more feele the mercy of God and grace â—f Christes redemption to the full satisfying of their â—onscience and perfect assurance of faith and hope of eâ—ernall life which though it receiue daily increases yet â—he vertue of Christes death in which God is reconciled â—nto vs is alwayes one and the same Where I charge Allen that the sufficiencie of Christs â—assion is counted a light argument vnto him Bristow â—aith it is too light in deede to beare downe any doctrin â—f Christ. But when or out of what scripture shal wee â—eare the doctrine of Christ for mens merites satisfaâ—tions propitiatorie or purgatorie it selfe Where I denye that our workes are any parte of saâ—isfaction for our sinnes of which the price is throughâ—y payed in the passion of Christ Bristow obiecteth the â—aying of the Apostle Phil. 2. Worke your owne saluation and yet it is God that worketh in you As though there were no working of our saluation but by satisfaction for our sinnes Wee worke our saluation when we walke in the way that God hath called vs to passe through vnto the free gift of eternall life namely in faith obedience thankfulnes c. which are so farre from merite that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to perfourme any good thing according to his good pleasure Phil. 2. And therefore wee neede not the schoole distinction of causes for the satisfaction of our sinnes by our workes which is onely the effect of Christes death and passion needing no helpe of our workes which worde Bristowe sayth mine ignorance so much abhorreth and yet the scripture often sayth that God helpeth both Christ Ps. 17. vs. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christs helpeth vs Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture that our workes helpe the passion of Christ I abhorre not the worde of helping when it is vsed in that sense that God and Christ should helpe vs or God helpe Christ in respect of his humanitie but that man by merite should helpe God Christ in the worke of our redemption satisfaction for our sinnes or purging of them I abhoâ—â—e with all my heart yea I spit at it and tread it vnder my feete But if the mercie of God saith Bristowe although iâ— be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christs passion nor the working of it or merites of that man how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christs passioÌ„ enforte you to exclude either his baptisme his good workes in his members or also the working of his baptisme and the working or efficacie of those good works especially seeing the scripture is plaine for all Bristow vnderstandeth not how the mercie of God is omnisufficient which is not as eâ—ery one will imagine but as it may stande with his iustice which is not otherwise satisfied but in the passion of Christ which being thereby fully satisfied we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth but that which not onely the scripture denyeth but nature it selfe abhorreth that contradictories should be both true Namely the iustice of God is fully satisfied by the onely suffering of Christ And the iustice of god is not satisfied by the onely sufferings of Christ but by other meanes also as by our own workes or suffrings or other mens for vs. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristowe citeth proue this later part of the contradiction to be true First where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration The text is when the louing kindnesse gentlenes of God our sauiour appeared not of the works of righteousnes which we wrought but according to his owne mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and the receiuing of the holy ghost which he hath powred foorth plentifully vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour that being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternal life Here it is manifest we are so â—aued by baptisme that we are iustified by his grace ther â—ore not by the merite of baptisme or satisfactioÌ„
argumentes with that impudent slaunder of all the church of God which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it within these 300. yeres I passe ouer come to the matter in question I said Purg. 57. against Allen mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell it is to be proued with manifest arguments autorities out of holy scriptures Although they were not nor yet are in perfect blessednes God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs shuld not be made perfect Heb. 11. But by this text saith Brist S. Paul doth meane that their soules were not yet admitted into heauen How proueth he that forsooth the old testament did consummate nothing c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted Christ died c. A sore bolt as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen but by the new testament or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith Heb 9. That the way of the saints was not yet opened while the first tabernacle stood Bristow addeth to the text of his own into soncta or heauen wher the apostle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death resurrection ascension the effect wherof neuertheles was extended no lesse to the fathers of that olde testament then to vs. Thirdly the apostle saith Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place by the bloud of Iesus which hath dedicated that new liuing way for vs through the vayle that is his flesh All which proueth nothing but that there is no entrance into heauen but by Christ which way is comon to all the saintes of God of all ages But Bristow biddeth me conferre the end of my text Heb. 11. with the beginning where he saith they receiued not the promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating I admit it for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies The consummation of which promise perfection of the saints God reserueth vnto one time when we shal all receiue the promise consummation together that they without vs saith he shoulde not be consummate the same reason is of the apostles fathers of the primitiue church vs of the later church them that shal be to the end of the world Now to mine arguments autorities of scripture I reason that seeing they all beleeued in Christ they had euerlasting life entred not into condemnation but passed frō death to life Ioh. 5. To what life saith Bristow but the life or resurrection of their bodies for vntil the last day all the dead are in death O prodigious heretike call you that a passage frō death to life to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years Is God then to this new Saducee the god of the dead not of the liuing yea he saith that life after corporal deth in the new testament lightly euery where signifieth the resurrection of the bodies What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world which shal be interrupted with so long abyding in death 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith he that beleueth in me hath alreadie eternal life if they that are passed out of this world are all in death wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie Limbus patrum or death The second argument is of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike Apoc. 13. To this the beast hath nothing to answere but that it is not said that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world but that all the reprobates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh And because Apoc. 17. the words be whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world by a monstrous construction contrary to the manifest composition and pointing both in the Greeke vulgare Latine to be referred not to the lamb slaine but to the booke of life As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world which is no where else written in the scripture but heere the cause of the trueth he will not haue to be my fonde sense but because his death was preordeined of God and prefigured so long before A substantiall cause by which we may say that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world because his death was so long before ordeined of God and prefigured in the death of Adam The third argument is that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life sayeth that there is peace and that they shall rest in their beddes Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon or hell is prepared of olde for the wicked To this he answereth that Esay speaketh not of his owne time but as a Prophet of the time now since the cōming of Christ who is our peace as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures And what a shamelesse answere is this to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet After a little quarreling against my translatiō the sense wherof he cannot deny he asketh if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine But sir Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe will not onely giue them rest without sense of paine but peace with happinesse and prosperitie Finally he sayeth Topheth or Gehenna was not the onely hell because our Creede and the Scripture sayeth that Christes soule was in hell I answere that hell signifyeth either the place or state of torments for sinnes in the former Caluine whome you slaunder sayth not that Christ was in but in the later when he complained that he was forsaken of God there is not therefore proued by Christes discending into hell any other place or receptacle of soules in hell but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned The fourth argument against Limbus is that Lazarus was carryed by Angels not downe to hell but vp to Abrahams bosome But the riche man being in hell looked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of Bristowe asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to
toward that 〈◊〉 of the world must be heated whot because the soules 〈◊〉 tary there the shorter time With such inuentions 〈◊〉 may answere any question But I seeke a resolution 〈◊〉 of the word of God or good reason agreeable thereto To the 2. question you answere it is not 〈◊〉 to Gods mercie to remit such punishment at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quest of his glorious Saintes as he nowe doeth â—or 〈◊〉 Churches prayers But seeing the Saintes know not 〈◊〉 sodennes of that moment howe shall they pray for 〈◊〉 discharge of them that deserue to goe to purgatorie 〈◊〉 they pray for it continually why pray they not as 〈◊〉 to discharge all other men from purgatory as those th 〈…〉 shal remaine aliue at the comming of Christe And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercie it is not the matter in question but howe it may stand with 〈◊〉 iustice which as you holde requireth satisfaction by temporall punishment For otherwise we know it standeth both with his iustice and his mercie that they whiche obteine forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ should immediately after their death be receiued into the fellowshippe of them that are likewise made righteous by him Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moued but not answered and yet the place is corrupted and inforced as Ludovicus Vives confesseth In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth against them which helde that God after the iudgement would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints In the 27. Chapter which he also quoteth there is nothing to the question Whether faith hope and Gods will may stand with Purgatorie This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians to mourne for the deade much more it is against the hope and faith of Christians to pray for them For by our prayer we suppose them 〈…〉 e in miserie whom the worde of God doeth testifie 〈…〉 e in happinesse to be at rest to be with Christ. Ioh. Apoc. 14. Bristow answereth those Scriptures proue that they be straightway in happinesse c. as he 〈◊〉 shewed and I haue shewed the contrary that they â—roue it notwithstanding all his impudent cauilati 〈…〉 Secondly he saith it is not against hope to mourne 〈◊〉 to mourne as the Gentiles which knowe not the 〈…〉 rrection Neither do I say that all mourning is a 〈…〉 st hope but such mourning as supposeth them to 〈…〉 n miserie or to be lost as the Papistes Paganes 〈◊〉 Our mourning for the delay of the kingdome God as he vnderstandeth it for the generall resurre 〈…〉 n is for our present miserie and therefore lawfull 〈…〉 e ioyned with hope But mourning for the dead whose happinesse the Scripture assureth vs is a 〈…〉 nst faith therefore contrary to hope 〈…〉 nother argument in the same place is All places 〈…〉 cripture that forbidde prayers without faith for 〈…〉 de prayers for the deade For faith is an assurance 〈◊〉 of the worde of God c. This argument saith Bristow supposeth that the 〈…〉 de of God is only Scripture Yea verily it suppo 〈…〉 that only Scripture is the warrant of Gods worde we haue before mainteined and also answered to 〈◊〉 Apocryphall Booke of the Machabees A third argument is Pur. 281. We learne out of Gods 〈…〉 rde that whatsoeuer we pray for according to his 〈…〉 ll we shall obteine 1. Iohn 5. Prayers for the dead 〈◊〉 not according to the will of God and therefore they 〈◊〉 not heard at al. Bristow denieth the minor which he 〈…〉 th I haue not proued Yes verily I proue it because the 〈…〉 dgement followeth immediately after death and in 〈…〉 dgement God wil heare no prayers And therefore 〈…〉 istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sinne not 〈…〉 to death and shameful addition Let him after his death 〈…〉 quest of Christ and life shal be giuen vnto him is false and 〈…〉 surde although he saith he hath giuen the plaine smoth 〈…〉 se of the whole place which is to be vnderstoode of men liuing and not of the dead A smooth expos 〈…〉 If one see his brother sinne he must pray for him a 〈…〉 his death Againe he vrgeth the present temps who 〈◊〉 knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not to death 〈◊〉 one saith Bristowe that liued in schisme but yet 〈◊〉 reconciled before he died O monstrous and more th 〈…〉 palpable blindenesse be these verbes liued reconc 〈…〉 dyed of the present or preterperfect temps which t 〈…〉 deniest the Apostle to haue vsed But omit the te 〈…〉 which he calleth him a brother which liueth in schis 〈…〉 How much more soundly may I reason vpon the present temps Saint Iohn biddeth vs pray for a brother 〈…〉 ning but a brother sinning is onely liuing therefore S. Iohn biddeth vs pray only for a brother liuing For they that are in Purgarorie neither deserue nor sinne by your owne confession As for the sinne against the holy Ghost which we say is not to be prayed for at all he threateneth often to consute in the 12. Chapter In the meane time it is euident that Purgatorie for any thing that is hitherto applyed by Bristow remaineth confuted by sufficient argumentes and authoritie of the Scriptures The fourth parte concerning all other questions that he mentioneth and first of good workes in generall Iustification Free will Remitting the questions of the witnesses of Gods worde vnto fiue motives in the 10. Chapter where I alledge that good workes do not iustifie two places one of Saint Paul another of Esaie he holdeth the contrary that works do iustifie And first calling me a falsary because I recite not the very wordes of the Apostle which was not my purpose but to shew what we do affirme out of that texte of the Apostle he saith iustification by workes is not denied by that text of Saint Paule Rom. 3. We holde that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe for it is to be vnderstoode of workes going before Baptisme and not of workes following 〈…〉 aptisme because Saint Iames saith a man is iustified of â—orkes and not of faith onely To this I aunswere 〈…〉 aint Paul speaketh of iustification before God Saint 〈…〉 ames of iustification before men Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by loue Saint Iames of a bare know 〈…〉 edge a barren and dead faith a faith that is voide of good workes And that Saint Paule speaketh generally of all good workes it is manifest by this reason that he saith boa 〈…〉 ting is excluded not by the lawe of workes but by the 〈…〉 awe of faith what manner of exclusion were it to shut â—ut boasting for a moment while one is baptized and â—mmediately after receiue it againe by defending iustification by workes Againe he sayeth immediately after â—t is one God which shal iustifie circuÌ„cision which is of faith and vncircumcision through faith
that is the circum 〈…〉 ised the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith as Aâ—raham in both the states was iustified by faith without the workes of the law although as Iames sayth he was â—ustified before men by his oblation which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith and obedience Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done but according to his owne great mercie 〈…〉 e saved vs by baptisme Bristowe asketh if I marke the temps Yea very well he speaketh of workes before faith And doth it therefore followe that works done after faith doe iustifie Saint Paule extendeth the saluation which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth and renewing of the holy Ghoste which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour vnto eternall life therefore it followeth that beeing iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke which is the iustification of Saintes made white in the bloud of the lambe but with the filthy ragges of mannes righteousnesse Bristowe asketh where I learned to call the good workes done in the Church the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse Verily euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church All we are as an vncleane person and all our righteousnesse as filthy ragges For although God accept our workes that are done in faith and pardon their imperfection yet when they are obtruded vnto him to iustifie vs he abhorreth them as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes Apoc. 19. are good workes Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn 3. He that worketh iustice is iust where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man not of the cause No flesh is iust by workes of the law but by faith by which God maketh iust euen the vngodly man But how much better conference is it to know what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth which is the iustification of Saintes to compare it with other places of the same prophecie as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed howe the stoles of the faithful are made white with the bloud of the lambe and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ Ephe. 5. Touching freewill I saide we beleeue that man after his fall hath not free will no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the worde we are not sufficient but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apte to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptnes is of God To this Bristowe replyeth that naturall free will is not taken from vs nor naturall aptnes of will I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher and not like a flat Pelagian But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good which is none but bondage vnto euill except he be regenerate and then is his will framed of God in parte to good but not perfectly in this life as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies as for freedome opposite to coaction if Bristowe meane that by reteyning of free will I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint but not from seruilitie vnto sinne Whereof Saint complaineth Rom 7. Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e mainteined if Gods spirite haue any place that di 〈…〉 ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his owne will 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes which is 〈…〉 ery true but without working of Gods spirite our will 〈…〉 at h no aptnesse vnto any good thing Againe he saith 〈…〉 hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes that are freely gi 〈…〉 en and not of them that make a man acceptable as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts which are not freely giuen And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all working of Gods spirite euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ and not of speciall graces onely So that Bristowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose or matter 〈…〉 n question For I holde that we haue no aptenesse vnto 〈…〉 ny good of our owne freewill but onely of the grace of God Bristow saith I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent if we haue willes of our owne which I neuer 〈…〉 enied but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good before they be framed therto by Gods spirit is the thing 〈◊〉 denye About good workes in speciall namely prayer to Saintes 〈…〉 astinge merites Concerning inuocation of Saints I saide Purg. 451. wee call not vpon Saints because we beleeue not in theÌ„ for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee beleue not Rom. 10. To this reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place he saith first that Saint Paule did often inuocate call vppon the faithfull beseching them to pray for him which is a toye to mocke with an Ape for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte and could helpe his greefe but onely of charitie desireth their prayers Secondly he asketh where is any Scripture that we must beleeue in God onely Forsooth amongst many this shal suffice which is written in Ieremie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said the people beleeued God and Moses his seruant as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets and beleeuing in them which is to put our trust in them The like I saie to the seconde place quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people if they giue credite to Gods Prophets Credite Prophetis eius But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue belyke because of the preposition beth which is a miserable shift Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen to differ from the Latine and English phrase and especially from the sense of beleuing that is trusting in God which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature which is not God He quoteth also Philemon whose loue faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu and towards all his Saints where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ and loue to the Saints But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue he saith in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood Iohn 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ because he is
I aunswere the argument is not of the onely naming of two but of the whole argument of the Apostle which is to proue that â—he fathers in participation of the sacramentes were equall with vs which were not sufficiently proued if hauing named onely two there were other fiue wherein wee are superior to them So that the naming of two is in this place the excluding of all other except those two Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen Wee read of the other fiue in other places Where I pray you Of Confirmation Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes Of Penance you read Iohn 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes I reade but of auricular confession and satisfaction I reade not Of extreme vnction you reade Iac. 5 of annoynting the sicke with oyle which by a speciall gift recouered health of body as well as remission of sinnes at the prayer of the faithfull I reade but of anealing men desperatly sicke which hath no hope of bodily recouerie I reade not Of orders you reade Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all although I reade that the Apostles were commaunded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him which were before ministers of his sacramentes and preachers of his worde but of Bennet and Collet coniurer subdeacon or masse priest I reade not in all the Scripture nor of Deacon in that Chapter Of Matrimonie both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ but long before in Paradise and is no more a sacrament of the newe testament then the raynebowe which yet with the couenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians But you confesse you reade not in those places that they are sacramentes no more doe you reade 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else This is a stale quarrell of the name of sacramentes which is not founde in Scripture although the thing signified by the name that is the seales of Gods promises and the name of signe of Gods couenants be often founde But your laste refuge is that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie which in antiquitie was by baptisme confirmation the complement of baptisme and the Euchariste and therefore speaketh not of the rest Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose which was to shewe that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace without a godly life woulde not serue to assure vs that God was pleased withvs it is cleare that the Corinthians among whome Saint Paul so long had preached coulde not bee without all other sacraments if any other were They had children to bee confirmed they themselues were married elders were to bee ordered offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled manie were sicke and some were fallen a sleepe to bee anealed And Saincte Paule saith expressely they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite 1. Corinth 1. Wherefore that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres and not knightes exercised in battell it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsiâ— heade and no trueth to bee verified of the Corinthians Secondly I say of the sacramentes in generall that they giue not grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought but after the faith of the receiuer and according to the election of Go◠〈◊〉 Corin. 10. Againe howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought if faith were requisite in them that receiue them This argument saith Bristowe holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion Why sir the passioÌ„ of Christ giueth not grace but to the faithfull and electe of God But faith you say is no work nor instrumeÌ„t but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde that the fire worketh vppon I will not enter into any philosophicall disputation with you whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon perhaps you thinke that water is moyster then ayre which error if you had no more cannot make you an heretike But I meruaile what cause you will make faith seing you exclude it from efficients except you make it a matter for the sacraments to worke vpon or else I know not what you meane by that your disposition lyke drienesse in woode which in deede is the thinne ayer more apte to receiue inflammations then the thicke water but perhaps you make it onely a potentia like materia prima for you adde that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought without the good motion of the vser onely so hee doe no part obicem that is so he doe not withstand the working as if a man be baptised sleeping and thinking nothing of it Neuerthelesse seing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient when you haue saide all that you can except you will teach vs newe gramer and Lògike You confesse the scripture sayth that by beleeuing and other good actions wee worke our owne saluation Phil. 2. as by way of meriting but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament neither doe I say that wee worke the effecte of any sacrament but that God worketh in vs according to faith which he giueth vs and his election You say further that the scripture teacheth that the passion of Christ giueth to our deedes vertue to merite where is that scripture written for vntill you shewe me where it is written I will say still to you as I saide to Allen the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie beleeuing stedfastly that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ of Christ Iesus without respect of our works Rom. 3. 4. But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue that I shew manifolde ignorance where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion and so graffed into his bodie is his holy spirite of promise which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritaunce who worketh in vs faith as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confirmation of our faith as was circumcision to Abraham when he was iustified before through faith Rom. 4. Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth turneth his heade away from the matter and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme as hee saith but in deede of
meere Bristowisme For Caluin neuer helde any such matter as he imagineth He asketh whether this be to say that all men are iustified before they come to the sacrament as though Caluin said they were Whereas a great number are iustified neither before nor after the receipt of them But this is to say that as Abraham was iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament so are all they that are iustified iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament Secondly he asketh whether all sacraments be seales of such a matter Yea verely or else saint Paul proueth the iustification of the Gentiles by faith very feebly after the example of Abraham Thirdly hee asketh whether all Iewes were iustified before they came to circumcision which I neuer hearde any man to affirme but that as many Iewes as were iustified were iustified by faith as Abraham was circumcision no more regarded in their iustification then it was in the iustification of Abraham Last of all he asketh whether circumcision were to the Iewes a seale of such a matter still he calleth it such a matter because he dare not name iustification by faith O the stinge of a wicked conscience But to the question I aunswere that to the Iewes which were iustified by faith circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which is imputed to them as it was to Abraham without merite or respect of their circumcision Other pointes of mine ignorance he saith are about the holy spirite of promise whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the meane to make vs partakers of the fruites of Christes passion Item the meane to graffe vs into his bodie Item that it worketh in vs faith In the conclusion he noteth the ignorance of the Protestantes where they holde this spirite promised to be nothing else but the gifte of tongues that is to say Christs greatest gifte to be his least gifte Out vpon the shamelesse lyer which of the Protestantes canst thou name that so holdeth We all holde that the holy spirite of promise Ephes. 1. is the spirite of adoption by which we are assured of eternall life Rom. 8. And as for the spirite prophecyed by Ioel and Iohn Baptist promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension we holde not to be specially of the spirit of adoption which the Apostles al the faithfull had before Christes death and much lesse of that spirit which your Bishops giue by imposition of hands in their counterfeit confirmation which is the spirit of vanitie whose fruites appeare not in any of the receiuers But we holde that promised gifte of Gods spirit to be that wonderful reuelation of knowledge and vnderstanding vtterāce in all states degrees of true Christians generally beside a great number of particular giftes not perpetuall bestowed vpon the Church in diuerse speciall members for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel As for your conference of scriptures whereof you prate so much is a meere confusion of matters of diuerse senses According to which manner of conference not weighing the sense of euery place by the proper circumstances thereof but following onely a sounde and similitude of some wordes euerie heretike might colour his heresie were it neuer so absurde as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth that they patched diuerse sentences together to make a shewe as though their heresie were contained in holy write which was nothing else but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in peeces shoulde of the peece after his owne manner ioyned together make the image of a dogge or a foxe or other foule beaste Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirite of promise wherewith the faithfull are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirite of tongues and prophecie which came vppon the twelue on whom saint Paul layed his hands Acts 19. The last errour of faith hee chargeth mee to bee the onely meane which hee saith is no meane but a disposition hee thinketh it sufficiently discouered before wherevnto I also thinke that I haue made answere sufficiently About the sacramentes in speciall The necessitie and effecte of baptisme Concerning baptisme I say it is necessary for al christians to receiue that are not by necessity excluded from it 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith it is necessarie for all men but when it cannot be actually had the effectuall desire of it supplyeth the want which desire infantes haue not and therfore onely the actuall hauing of baptisme doth quicken them in Christ being dead in Adam Touching the saluation of infants of the faithful dying without baptisme I said nothing but by implication that there is no such necessitie of Baptisme that the want of the outwarde sacrament shoulde condemne the seede of the faithful perteining to gods election couenant where there is no default either of contempt or neglect of it Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth the effectuall desire in men of yeares to supply the want which yet the wordes of his text Iam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authoritie of his doctors that condemne all vnbaptised infants wil not beare what reason is it why he should not extende his supply vnto the effectuall desire of those infants parents and friends whose faith he acknoledgeth to supplie the want of actuall faith in the infants that are baptised Beside this hee saith that he did mark wel ynough where I said that the sacramēts giue grace according to the election of God As though all infants baptised so dying be not of Gods electe or that some be not saued although they be baptised asketh what scripture I haue for this geere But in deede he bow leth at the wrong marke for in saying that the sacramentes tooke effect according to the faith of the receiuer and according to gods election I ment that God in baptisme giueth grace to infāts which haue no actual faith of their owne according to his eternal electiō in mercy But whether al infants baptised so dying be of the nūber of gods elect as I do not know so I wil not contend But this I know that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laide the receiuing of baptisme cannot make them Gods elect Ephe. 1. Where Bristowe vrgeth the saying of saint Peter 1. Pet. 3. baptisme saueth vs now it is a weake argument to proue the baptisme of infants either to saue them all that receiue it or to condemne all that receiueth it not For explicating him selfe of what baptisme hee speaketh he addeth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh as you woulde say outwarde washing which is the externall sacrament but the interrogation of a good conscience towardes God which is the thing signified by outwarde washing and yet not founde in infantes but in them that haue knowledge among whom whosoeuer hath it not hee shall no more bee saued then any was preserued
sufficient for thee my strength is perfected in infirmitie c. First he belyeth vs whome hee calleth heretikes to say that to burne is nothing else but to bee troubled with the pricking of the flesh for wee holde there is no praise of virginitie where there is no naturall prouocation vnto luste But to burne wee say is to bee so troubled as men are that are inflamed with lust and haue no lawfull meanes to quench the same Secondly beholde howe shamefully hee slaundereth Saint Paul to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh where he complayneth of the generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite the messenger of Satan to buffet him euen that lawe of his members of which hee complayneth Rom. 7. which brought him captiue vnder the lawe of sinne As for that pricking which Bristowe speaketh of to bee so much in a bodie so exercised with afflictions and trauels with hunger and fastings and in a man of such age as Sainct Paul was at that time when he wrote vnto the Corinthians the second Epistle it is altogether incredible And confessing a generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite vnto all sinne it is not probable that he should in this place complaine of that one kinde onely from which age and weakenesse of bodie woulde priuiledge him if godly exercise did not ridde him What is it then to burne saith Bristowe or to be burned saint Paul himselfe telleth vs it is not to containe If they doe not conteine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne for marriage is honorable and vndefiled but fornicatours and adulterers God will iudge The conference whereof is this Let married folke vse their owne bedde c. and let the vnmarried folke enter into marriage rather then not to containe to burne to commit fornication So that to burne not to containe and to commit fornication by Bristowes conference is all one So that hee which committeth not fornication although hee bee continually inflamed with filthie luste yet by Bristowes iudgement hee burneth not he is continent hee is a virgine Againe if not to containe and to burne be nothing else but to commit fornication it woulde followe in saint Paules wordes that men are not commaunded to marrie before they haue made triall of their incontinence by committing fornication which seeing it is horrible absurditie it followeth that the Apostle to preuent fornication exhorting men to marrie which containe not seeing it is better to marrie then to burne vnderstandeth incontinence and burning for an inflaÌ„mation of lust without fornication or actuall filthinesse committed But whatsoeuer saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that doe not containe hee meaneth it of such as haue made no vowe to liue vnmarried For of those that haue vowed his sentence is saith Bristowe that they incurre damnation if they marrie because they haue broken their first faith 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine hee vnderstandeth for their last vowe of widowhood notwithstaÌ„ding that I shewed both by conference in the same chapter by the title of first and by the name of faith that it cannot properly bee so taken but for the faith of Christianitie euen as he saith if any prouide not for his family he hath denied the faith Where I finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture is neuer vsed for a vowe or promise made to God Bristowe aunswereth why doe not you say your selfe that both there once afore in the same chapt it is vsed for the vow or promise made in baptisme no sir. I neuer said it I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptisme and Christianitie except you wil say that the faith of Christianitie embraced by baptisme is nothing else but a vowe or promise made to God Againe can you remember neuer a place saith he where the faith of god is the promise of God looke Rom. 3. yea sir I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the trueth of Gods promise but I finde not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the vowe or promise made to God which because you your selfe so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures coulde not finde you curâ—olled my saying repeating my wordes for a vowe or promise and leauing out that I added made to God The Latine phrase of the faith or promise of marriage vsed by Saint Augustine and other Latine writers aunswereth not to my demaunde of the vse of the greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scriptures which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission it is more like he woulde haue called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their former faith and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first faith Againe the conference whiche Bristowe vrgeth of them that are alreadie turned back after Satan most aptely agreeth to theÌ„ that had forsaken not onely their widowhood but also their Christianitie Loe saith Bristowe your selfe are compelled to graunt that which you denyed to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying ergo Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying so inuincible is the texte in our exposition Fulke it goeth harde with you And all this because I saide such wanton young huswiues proceede so farre that at length they forsake widowhood Christianitie and al. Saide I onely because they forsake widowhoode No but because they waxe wanton against Christ because they haue forsaken the first faith which is Christianity and not only because they haue married and giuen ouer theyr widowhoode whereof whether there were a vowe or no it is not proued Although it be probable there was a promise made vnto the Church because such poore widowes susteined of the Churches almes were imployed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sicke and impotent that men should be collectors and distributers of the almes but womeÌ„ also were necessary for diuers seruices about them which were not conuenient for men to exercise But if I should graunt vnto you that the first faith here signifieth the last vowe of widowhoode yet it foloweth not of this place that all that haue married after rashe vowes made to the contrary are damned For Saint Paule speaketh not of them that were constreined by the necessity of incontinencie which it is not euery mans gift to auoyde to flye to the generall remedy appoynted by God for auoyding of fornication that euery man should haue his wife and euery woman should haue her husband without any exception but only of them he speaketh that waxed wanton against Christ which being liuing to the worlde were dead to God What is this against them which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vowe to performe that which they were not able namely continence or chastity without mariage the
qui matrimonis contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt They saie that Elders or Priests which haue ioyned them selues in matrimony ought to be despised Therefore these catholique Bishops thought those Priests good ones which did ioyne them selues in matrimony so they made their Canon Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum c. If any man make difference of a married Priest as though by occasion of his marriage he ought not to offer and doth therfore absteine from his oblation let him be accursed Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane councell decreeth Cap. 10. Diaconi quicunque c. Whosoeuer be ordeyned Deacons if at the same time when they were ordeined they protested saying that they would be ioyned in marriage because they could not so continue if afterwarde they haue married wiues let them remaine in the ministerie because the Bishop hath giuen them licence But so many as haue helde their peace and taken imposition of handes professing continencie and afterwarde be ioyned in marriage ought to ceasse from the ministerie Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo lib 4. allowing the tradition of the orientall Churches for marriage of theyr Church ministers Aliter se Orientalium c. The tradition of the Easterne Churches hath it otherwise and otherwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome For the Priests Deacons and Subdeacons of their Churches are coupled in marriage but none of the Priestes of this Church from the Subdeacon vnto the Bishoppe hath licence to enter into mariage It were hard if there were neuer a good one among all the Cleargie of the East Churches since the Apostles time which haue ben married and yet are To conclude I trust it is apparant to the indifferent reader that such texts of Scripture as I alledged in those two bookes which Bristow vndertaketh in this confuse manner to confute were rightly applyed and without all violence or wresting doe proue sufficiently that for which they were called to witnesse And as for the popish conference of Scriptures wherof Bristowe once againe with great lothsomnesse doeth bragge how sound it is you may perceiue by this example taste giuen by him in this Chapter Wherefore I maruell much what learned ministers of our church these were whom Bristow affirmeth being in number more then a dozen and diuerse of no vulgar wittes by their onely hearing of your conference of scriptures to haue become papists By like some vagabonde irregular and vnhonest persons being depriued of their ministerie for their vngodly behauiour haue sought fauour among them by reuolting or at least counterfaiting to be reuolted to papistrie when they be of no religion commended by Bristow for their wittes but neither for their honestie nor learning CAP. IX To defende that the doctors as they be confessed to be ours in very many pointes so they be ours in all pointes and the Protestants in no point All the doctors sayings that he alledgeth are examined and answered The first part of his doctors generally his challenging words I confesse not the doctors to be yours in very manye points nor simply in fewe pointes nor all in any point of controuersie but graunting that for a fewe errours which you haue common with them in which you also farre exceede them as in prayers for the dead prayers to saintes some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies I affirme that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controuersie they are either all with vs or not one against vs. 2 A generall answere to his challenge declaring that 〈◊〉 neede not to answere his doctors particularly His first reason is because I sayde wee stande for authoritie onely to the iudgement of the holy scriptures which scriptures in the chapter going before he hath satisfied But how he hath satisfied them let the indifferent readers iudge And seeing the Papistes offer to stād to their iudgement in all things and wee refuse them not as witnesses vnto the truth in most things he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors His second reason is for that I do answere all mine own doctors for him if it be wel considered what is your consideration In that I confesse them to haue helde with you the very same points for which wee must bee condemned no remedie as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes What are those I pray you Bristowe answereth For why doeth he saye that we are against the honor of God against the offices of Christ but because wee holde inuocation of saints and worshipping of their reliques yes sir for other more grosse idolatrie and defacing of the kingdome priesthod and propheticall office of Christe and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossely then any of the doctors did Againe why doth he say that we are against the authoritie of Gods worde but because we hold with traditions as the doctors did I aunswere the doctors held with no traditions that were proued to be against the written worde of God they made not the decrees of Councels and Popes of equall autoritie with the worde of God as you do But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my wordes in which I say expressely I confesse with M. Allen that the old writers not only knewe but also haue expressed the value of our redemption by Christ in such wordes as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stande with them And yet on the other side saith Bristowe see what followeth immediatly Against the value of which redemption if they haue vttered any thing by the worde of satisfaction or any thing else we may lawfully reiect their authoritie not onely though they be doctors of the church but also if they were angels from heauen But what I pray you concludeth Bristowe of these two sayings His wordes followe immediatly So that nowe we no more neede to defende against him that wee are not contrarie to the doctors then that the doctors are not contrary to them selues As though it were impossible for men to be contrarie to themselues And yet I say no more of them then of the angels that they are contrary to the trueth in this point but that if they were wee might reiect them as lawfully as the angels if they brought another gospell Last of all he sayth Wee neede not defend that we are contrarie to our selues in the same For in what wordes the doctors speake thereof the same do wee Neither is the antecedent true nor if it were doth the argument followe For you will not saye as the olde writers doe that through the redemption of Christ a man is iustified before God by faith onely without respect of his workes or merites And where you vse the doctors wordes you either vse them in a contrary sense or else elude them with additions distinctions neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the olde doctors but inuented out of your owne
which then did persecute the church of God in some places in generall the citie of the diuel that is to saye the whole body of the reprobat Bristowe asketh if it be not a perillous point to touch the citie of Rome in saint Iohns time when it did persecute the church of Rome As though S. Iohn telleth a storie of his owne time and not a prophecy of the time to come Ambrose therfore or whosoeuer writeth that coÌ„mentarie interpreteth that prophecy Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the citie of Rome which was not onely of persecution but of seduction But the vndoubted Ambrose if you remember sayeth Bristowe of the church of Rome sayeth In al things I couet to followe the Romane church De sac lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bounde to followe the church of Rome he sayeth immediately after Sed tamen nos homine sensum habemus c. But yet we being men haue vnderstanding Therefore that which is more rightly obserued elsewhere we also do rightly obserue We follow the Apostle Peter him selfe we sticke vnto his deuotion what doth the church of Rome answere to this Verily Peter him selfe which was a priest of the church of Rome is author to vs of this assertion In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in that they vsed not to wash mens feete in baptisme Vniustly indeede he vrgeth that ceremonie as necessarie but yet he sheweth that his iudgement was that the church of Rome might receiue a custome contrarie to yâ— scripture Beside this saith Bristow he calleth Peter the first the foundation in the verie same place where say you Pur. 320 he affirmeth that Peter is not the foundation Howsoeuer I deale with my reader you deale vnfaithfully with me for my wordes are these He affirmeth the not Peter but the faith the confession of Peter is the foundation of the church and that the primacy of Peter was a primacie of faith not of honour of confession not of autoritie or higher order De incaern dom Ca. 4. 5. Ambrose his words are Cap. 4. Vos autem c. But what do you say of mee Immediatly Peter being not vnmindful of his place he exercised the primacy The primacie of confessing truely not of honor the primacie of faith not of order or degree And Cap. 5. Faith is the foundation of the church For it was not said of Peters flesh but of his faith that the gates of death shal not preuailc against it his confession ouercommeth hel The former of these places Brist corrupteth by adding this worde worldly to the words of Ambrose honor degree aâ— though Ambrose had meant that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor degree being equal to his fellowes in worldly honour and degree But such folly was farr froÌ„ Ambrose to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor degree when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignitie at all But he expresseth wherein all his primacie was when he sayeth he was first in confession first in protestation of his faith not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellowes who all helde the same faith and confession And this of Peters person neuer a worde of his successours which yet are not onely the bishops of Rome when they were at the best but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles Hierom Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places in which the Apostles sat in person but by authoritie of teaching receiued from them with soundnes of doctrine To the later place Bristow saith the diuel may preuaile against the fleshe of a Pope but his faith but his confession as well in all articles that be nowe in coÌ„trouersie as in those at that time wil stand when they shall all be sonke downe into their due place But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of euery bishop of Romes faith and confession but onely of the singular faith and confession of Peter Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God which is against all sectes and heresies Dies me citius c. the day should sooner faile mee then the names of heretikes and diuers sectes Yet this faith is generall against them all that Christ is the sonne of God both sempiternall of his father and also borne of the virgine Let nowe the reader iudge whether of vs hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose Fourthly he gathereth that I saye in diuerse places that Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Alexandrinus Cyprianus the Councell of Africa and Socrates the historiographer did preach or write against the Popes authoritie when it first began to aduance it selfe in Victor Cornelius Stephanus Anastasius Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus To this Bristow answereth First that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church therfore I am against my selfe in making other Popes to be antichrist for claiming such authoritie as these did Whereto I replye the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discouer the mysterie of iniquitie those later Popes that are antichrists did openly shewe them selues in the temple of God as God and therefore great difference Secondly Bristowe answereth that all those writers did communicate with those Popes therefore our separation cannot be excused I replye their ambitious vsurpation tended not to heresie and therfore they were content to admonish them but the latter Popes from whome we dissent are fallen into open heresie and apostasie Thirdly he saith that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authoritie as he wil shewe of Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Cyprian Cap. 10. in 28. demaunde where I will shewe that they did write against such vniust authoritie as those bishops did claime Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place hee sayeth that hee exhorteth Cornelius to bee as stout in not loosing certeine African heretikes as their owne bishop had beene in bynding of them By which hee woulde haue men thinke that Cornelius had authoritie to vndoe that which Cyprian had done as the Pope in these dayes taketh vpon him But Cyprian yeldeth to no such authoritie but maruelleth that Cornelius was anye thing moued with the threatening of those heretiks to receiue them into his churâ—â— vnder pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediatly of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a fewe heretikes counting it sufficient that Cornelius knewe before that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa saying of their gadding to Rome Cùm statutum sit c. Seing it is decreede of vs all and that it is meete also right that euery mans cause shoulde be heard there wher his crime is committed and a portion of the flock is ascribed to euery pastor which euery one should rule and gouerne as he will giue an account of his doing to the Lord verily they ouer whome we are set must not gad about nor with
and other cited in diuerse places of my booke These places he saith are but bare names But when we come to expounding of these places we shall finde eyther reason or auctority of these Doctors for vs. In the meane time we will consider Hieronyme whom Bristowe saith that I confesse to haue allowed prayers for the deade Wherein he saith vntruly for I neuer confessed simply that he allowed prayers for the deade But Pur. 194. I saide interrogatiuely and by waie of concession Howe hapeneth it that Chrysostome and Hieronyme which both interpreted that place could gather no such matter although they otherwise allowed prayer for the deade And indeede in so many bookes of Hieronyme nothing can be found whereby it may be proued that he allowed prayer for the deade although it were a common error of many in his time And in this place cited in the decrees by Gratia◠139. 2. he simply denieth that any prayers are profitable for the deade The place in deede as Bristowe saith is in his Comment vpon Gal. 6. although he in exposition allude to 2. Cor. 5. we must all appeare before the iudgment seate of Christe But the answere of this place of Hierome Bristowe saith I might learne of the glose which expoundeth it of them that die without repentaunce only but in deede it is spoken generally of all men As the very wordes declare vpon this texte Euery one shall beare his owne burthen Videtur superioribus contrair◠vbi ait c. He seemeth to goe against the former sentence where he sayth Beare the burthens one of an other For if euerie one shall beare his owne burthen one cannot beare the burthens of an other But we must consider that there he commanded that we which cōmit sinne should in this life helpe one an other and in this present worlde should be an aide one to an other but here hee speaketh of the iudgment of the Lorde vpon vs that not of other mens sinn or of comparison of the worser but according to our own worke we shal be iudged of him either sinners or holy euery one receiuing according to his owne worke Obscurè licet doce 〈…〉 r per han◠sententiolam nouum dogma quod latitat We are taught by this short sentence though darkely a newe doctrine or opinion whiche lyeth hidde that while we are in this present worlde we may helpe one another either by prayers or by counsels but when we shall come before the iudgement seate of Christe that neither Iob nor Dauid nor Noe can intreate for any man but that euerie one doth beare his owne burthen That which Hierome speaketh of himselfe and of all other that prayers can not auaile them beeing out of this world when the glose restreyneth onely to them that die in mortall sinne without repentance it is as good as the olde iest Statuimus id est abrogamus It is also worthy to be considered that Hierome as it seemeth against the errour of his time calleth this a newe doctrine which he gathereth of that sentence That the moste auncient doctours doe not interprete the Scriptures by name against Purgatorie I said it was because Purgatorie in their time was neither heard nor named Bristowe replyeth that I confessed Cap. 3. that the olde doctours heard both the name and the thing c. Thus he chargeth me still with confessions falsely For although Augustine heard of the name of Purgatorie whereof he sometimes doubteth sometimes denyeth all places but two yet no writer before him Neither were prayers for the dead heard in the Churche before the heresie of Montanus But to returne to Hierome whom I saide in Eccle. 11. to expound the North and South not for the states of grace and wrath but for the places of rewarde or punishment Bristowe sayeth of both But I denie that he speaketh of the state of grace in that sort that Allen meaneth namely that any man so dieth in the state of grace that he obteineth release of punishment after this life which is the matter in question but that Bristowe is disposed to cauill For although a man in this life may be remoued out of the North into the South yet when the tree is fallen there is no more remouing by Hieroms iudgement Wheresoeuer thou preparest thee a place and a seate hereafter whether it be in the South or in the North there when thou art dead thou shalt continue This whiche the Doctor speaketh expressely of a place a seate of euerlasting continuance Bristow for want of a better answere expoundeth of merite as though it might stande with Hieronyms authoritie that the place might be changed although the merite can not be bettered Touching scriptures for Purgatorie and prayer for the dead whether the Doctours say No Scripture to make for it I said that Tertullian confesseth that oblations prayers for the dead were not taken of the scriptures but of tradition Bristow in diuers places denieth any such confession of Tertullian restraining his meaning to an onely ceremonie of oblation and prayers on the yeares day of their departure as though oblation and prayer for the dead generally were clearly taught in the scriptures which thing if it be why doth not Allen or Bristowe or any writer yong or olde bring one place out of the canonicall Scriptures allowing prayer and oblation for the deade and as touching Tertullian his wordes are such as with no equity may be restrained to so particular a ceremonie Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annua die facimu◠We make oblations for the deade for the day of mens byrth on the yearly daie If Oblationes pr◠natalitiis be not founde in the Scriptures at all neither on the yearly daie nor any other daie Why saie we not the like of Oblationes pro desunctis Againe why maie it not be that the yearly day of celebration is meant only of mens byrth and oblations for the deade left at larg◠for to celebrate the yearly festiuity of mens birth was vsual among the Gentiles euery man for himselfe But to obserue the yearely day of al mens death were infinite either for their friends or for the Priests to doe Wherefore it remaineth that oblations for the dead what soeuer they were in Tertullians time were not taken of the Scriptures And if they were Masse and prayers for the dead as the Papistes say Masse and prayers for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures by Tertullians confession The contradictions that he layeth to me I alwayes reserue to their peculiar Chapter Augustine also denyeth a third place to be found in the Scriptures D◠Verb. Apost ser. 14. Contra Pelagian Hyp. lib. 5. And De Verb. Apostol Ser. 33 For praying for the dead he alledgeth the tradition of the fathers which he is not wont to doe where scripture doth not faile him Epiphanius likewise against Aerius bringeth no Scripture but the custome and tradition of the Churche in naming the dead in their prayers
And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers that defende such prayers confessed they had them not of the Scriptures Of certaine particular textes I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare that the text 1. Cor. 3. of him that shal be saued through fire proueth not Purgatorie affirming that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life Bristowe cauilling that he affirmeth not but speaketh doubtfully c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire But Augustines wordes are plaine Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apoâ—tolus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh ought to be vnderstoode such that both may passe thorough it that is both he that buildeth vpon this foundation Golde Siluer pretious stones and he also which buildeth Woode Strawe Stubble For when he had saide this he added The fire shal trie euerie mans work such as it is if any mans worke remaine that which he hath builded vpon he shall receiue rewarde But if any mans worke be burned he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shal be saued yet so as it were through fire The fire truely is the tentation of tribulation of which it is manifestly written in an other place The fornace proueth the potters vessels and tentation of tribulation iust men This fire in this present life worketh that which the Apostle saith c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe Againe he speaketh not at all against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire that it shall haue an end but against such as in his time did holde That they which forsake not the name of Christ and are baptised with his lauer in the Church and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie although they liue in neuer so great wickednes which they neither wash away by repenting nor redeemed with almes but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life shal be saued through fire although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long but yet not eternal fire But they which beleeue this yet are catholikes seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence For the holy scripture being consulted answereth another thing c. Enc. ad Laurentium C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire through which some should passe not all therfore against the popishe purgatorie although he denye not but such a thing may be yet it cannot be proued by this place nor by any other place of scripture as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. diuision of this chapter where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie I answered Allen apposing vs where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way is cast into hell from whence he shal neuer come I alledged for that sense Chrysostome Augustine Hierom Chromatius This is passing childish saith Bristow For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing But this in deede is passing impudence for Allens words in the same diuision after he hath posed Caluin Flaccus Luther Iewel about their interpretation of scriptures are these But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title is of that place Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow it is not true that all those doctors haue that sense which I affirme them to haue But he only saith it let their wordes be read Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true As in that saying Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing some haue expounded that he shall alwayes be punished some that hee shall not be alwayes punished Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true Mary sayth Bristow with as fine Rhetorike as strong Logike Thus it is true those he and he are not one he but he that shal be alwayes punished is he that to the end of the way that is this life agreeth not with his aduersarie whome he hath deadly iniuryed as saying to him fatue and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis which iâ— the prison of the damned He that shal not be alwayes punished is he whose iniury was but veniall as Racha And so both interpretations agree well not onely together but also with the text it selfe In deede this is a fine distinction of he and he but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way shal be cast into prison from whence he shall neuer come whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them there is but one prison from whence there is no deliuerance vntil the last farthing be payde which by those doctors exposition is neuer payde Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser the punishment is eternall without reconciliation or as Saint Luke sayeth diligence to be reconciled If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee goe and reconcile thy selfe sayeth Christe and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger or saying Racha and not onely of saying Fatue But as for that he which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him he is not at all committed to prison were his iniurie great or small So that which He soeuer commeth into prison there is no waye of escape vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged Secondly whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testimonie against vs. First about the booke of Machabees Where I sayde that Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD Bristowe replyeth as though all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures Fulk reioyneth that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes is not canonicall Where I take exception to the Councel of Carthage which numbreth this booke among
of theirs how they should be receiued though it be not resolued yet can not disprooue them to be the true Church nor proue the Donatists to be the Church seeing there can be but one Where out of this Booke Cap. 16. I shewe that Augustine declareth first that Heretikes must be confuted only by Scriptures secondly that neither councells succession of Bishoppes vniuersality miracles visions dreames nor reuelations are the notes to trie the Catholike Church but only the Scriptures Bristowe saith they are notes with the Scripture as he hath shewed in his demaund I answere whatsoeuer agreeth with the Scripture may well be receiued But the Scripture without all these is sufficient to trie the Church as Augustine sheweth therefore all the rest of Bristowes motiues might be spared if he durst ioyne issue vpon the Scripture only as Augustine doth but that he dare not do He hath a great quarrell of Augustine for translating manifestatur is proued as though Augustine saide that true miracles and visions lacke waight and fashion of iust probation If you call true miracles that are done indeede and not counterfeited I say that all such make no iust probation For God tempteth his Church by such to see if they will forsake his commandement Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeede are ioyned with the truth of doctrine which being tryed by the worde of God to be such confirme it or prepare mens mindes vnto it of themselues neuer sufficient to auouch true doctrine without Gods worde and therefore I will stil tâ—â—nslate manifestatur is manifestly prooued or shewed which is alone Moreouer out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam Cap. 4. I shewed that though consent and vniuersality antiquity succession be good confirmation when they are ioyned with truth yet when trueth is seuered from them it is more to be regarded then they all Bristowe saith that Augustine graunteth not that the truth can be separated from them Yes verily or else he should haue stood vpon that poynt only that truth can not be seuered from those markes which vndoubtedly the Catholique Church had and the Manichees wanted And although he saide the Church had most syncere wisdom yet he saith not that wheresoeuer was antiquity succession c. there must needs be the most syncere wisdome Lastly out of the booke De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affirmed that mans auctority is too weake to carry away so waighty a matter as was in question vsing the wordes of Augustine Auferantur chartae humanae c. Let mens papers be remoued let the voices of God be heard shewe me one place of Scripture for Donatus side c. Bristowe rehearsing the saying more at large as I did Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke vnlesse hee thinketh he hath any vantage in his owne false translation of Acta turning it decrees Surely whether the worde be well or ill translated I seeke no vantage therof and yet if I should change my translations I would rather call Acta actes of the Court or recordes then Courtrolles as you doe But euery man may see what vantage you clasp at among ignorant persons by your false translation of Chartae humanae mens Court papers as though the worde of Augustine were not generall to remoue all mens writings and to vrge only the Scripture But the Church beginning at Hierusalem spreading ouer all Nations to the very last time which Augustine in all places proueth against the Donatists maketh much against vs in Bristowes opinion Nay rather against the Papists which restraine the Church into the Romishe rable which we affirme both is and was alwaies scattered ouer al the world although greater in number at some times then at other some seeing that Mahomet hath infected a greate part of the worlde and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ hath his members that neuer bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha or to the Pope of Rome 3 About certaine traditions The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I saide those oblations with other superstitions fathered vpon tradition of the Apostles by the Nicen other councels as Rhenanus witnesseth are abrogated Bristowe answereth that he speaketh neuer a worde of any other traditions Yet Bristowe confesseth him selfe that many of them are abrogated Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. 5. 4 About the marriage of Votaries The two places one of Epiphanius the other of Hieronyme whiche I cited for the Marriage of Votaries Bristo we sayeth are about a matter which they holde euen as those fathers did But in deede they holde the contrary for they helde the marriage of such lawfull the Papistes dissolue them and say they are no marriages It is better saith Epiphanius to haue one sinne and not many It is better for him that is fallen from his course opeÌ„nly to take a wife according to the lawe and of long time to repent from his virginitie and so to be brought againe to the Church as one that hath done amisse as one that is fallen and broken hauing neede to be bounde rather then to be wounded daily with priuie dartes of that wickednesse which the deuil putteth into him So knoweth the Church to preache these are the medicines of healing Bristowe saith I gather that marriage is an wholsome medicine for such men Contrarie to that I confesse my selfe that he calleth it a sinne But he slaundereth me as he doeth often I saide Epiphanius doth count it an offence to marry because it was a breache of vowe but neither he nor I saide that marâ—iâ—ge is a sinne Bristowe saith likewise the Apostles tradition calleth it a sinne But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof euen as he did me The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt c. The holy Apostles of God haue deliuered that it is a sin after virginity decreed to be turned to marriage They say not marriage is a sinne but by breache of vowe to marrie is a sinne For their sinn cannot pollute the ordinance of God But the wholsome medicines are penance reconciliation saith Bristowe And why not marriage I pray you whatsoeuer is good for the diseased is an wholsom medicine to take a wife openly is good for the diseased therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine As for your distinction of solemne vowe and sole vow is a very bable Epiphanius speaketh generally of al that had vowed virginity To the place of Hierome Ad Demetriadem he answereth that they which of two sinnes will needes committ one they counsell them to committ the lesse rather then the greater But Hierom maketh no comparison of sinnes but saith to such virgins as liued incontinently It must be plainly saide to them that either they should marry if they cannot containe or else they should containe if they will not marry 5. About the reall presence and transubstantiation About these pointes I will not stande considering
said not If Bristowe will say that none from Paganisme were conuerted to Christianitie by the Nouatians Donatistes or other heretikes I wil see what I haue in store to proue it The conuersion of the Moscouites by the Grecians Bristowe asketh whether it were before their schisme or after and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation and not in time of their schisme I reade the conuersion of the Moscouites to haue ben into the Greekish forme of Christianitie An. Do. 987. Ioachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo about which time the controuersie of the proceeding of the holy Ghost began to arise but long before the Greeke Church refused subiection to the Church and Pope of Rome which if you call but an emulation you ouerthrow the rocke of your owne religion breake off the band of your vnitie which you affirme to coÌ„sist only in subiection to the Romish bishop In the 11. Demaund of Brittanie where I saide the Actes of the Apostles is the best monument to shewe into what faith as well this Island as all other nations were conuerted by the Apostles Bristowe asketh Whether the Actes of the Apostles were written to shewe into what faith all nations were conuerted that were turned by the Apostles Yea verily they were written to shewe that the Apostles preached the same faith vnto the Iewes and Gentiles which they receiued of Christ according to the holie Scriptures and thereof the bâ—oke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the practise of the Apostles according to such instruction as thei receiued of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to any nation of the Gentiles There is mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to the Iewes and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles although it was neither possible nor needfull nor conuenient that they should all twelue in person goe to euery nation But what faith so euer any one preached to any nation the same did they all preach without difference in euerie nation that they conuerted There is not one of the articles of the Creede necessarie to saluation but it is to be proued by the Actes of the Apostles that they did preach it But Bristowe wil tell vs an other cause why that booke was written No sir saith he that booke was written to shewe onely the beginning of the Church according to the prophets to wit at IerusaleÌ„ among the Iewes and the taking of it from them for their deserts and giuing it to the Gentiles euen from Ierusalem the head of the Iewes to Rome the head of the Gentiles If this were the only purpose of the Euangelist as Bristowe most impudently affirmeth he should haue spared much labour in setting foorth the sermons and summe of the doctrine which the Apostles preached both to the Iewes and Gentiles But let vs heare Bristowe goe forward And there Saint Luke endeth it not caring to tell so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paule in whose person this translation was wrought and not in S. Peters for causes too long to be here rendered Thou must stand before the Emperor Because his purpose was no more but to shewe the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so to leade them to it to knowe what are the particulars that the Apostles taught If this be true all the testimonie and report that he maketh of their doctrine was beside his purpose yea the historie of the gospell which he writ of all things that Iesus beganne to do and teach was out of this purpose And he tooke the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus to teach him the certaintie of those things wherof he had bene instructed as Saint Luke him selfe had receiued of the Apostles them selues whereas according to Bristowes imaginatiue purpose seeing there had ben manie writings of the gospel alreadie he should haue sent him home to the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so haue left him to it to knowe what are the particulars the Apostles taught But where on gods name learne wee that whore of Babylon that sitteth vpon the seuen hilles Apoc. 17. to be this newe Ierusalem on earth when S. Paul Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly Ierusalem vnto the heauenly IerusaleÌ„ which is aboue and is the mother of vs all not to an other Ierusalem on earth and that the mother of all abhominations of the earth Apoc. 17. And howe falleth it out that S. Luke hauing a purpose so long and certainely continued and so necessarie for the Church not in one word commendeth to vs this newe Ierusalem on the seuen hils nor in one word maketh mention of that which only changeth if any thing can chaunge hell into heauen Rome into Ierusalem namely the translation of Peters chaire or his person or the least haire of his head or thred of his garment to Rome But this belike is reserued among the Apocriphal causes as these are why the translation was in the person of S. Paule and not of S. Peter Where I required one of those nations to whome the Apostles preached purgatorie or praier for the dead to be named out of the Actes of the Apostles Bristowe answereth continuing his former speach And so withall you haue one of those nations named and that no common one to wit the Romanes which receiued of the Apostles not only that article you require but all the rest which at this time it hath c. When this is shewed out of the Actes of the Apostles or any other Canonical scripture I am answered Where I require it to be proued that the same Apostle which first conuerted Britanie taught praiers or sacrifice for the deade Bristowe answereth If you require vs to proue it out of the Scripture considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conuersion you declare your selfe to be but a pratler At the least wise you declare that you cannot proue it out of the scriptures But we can proue out of the scriptures euery article that we beleeue to haue bene taught by that Apostle or Apostolike man whosoeuer first preached the saith of Christ in this lande although our landes conuersion be not by name mentioned in scripture Yet seeing the doctrine of euerie one of the Apostles was the same that is expressed in the scriptures we are able to proue that he preached the same which we beleue considering that we beleue al that is written in the holy scriptures As for the confirmation of Eleutherius which Bristowe saith was an accomplishing of that which was begun by the Apostles Romanes if he meane of a supply of doctrine it is false for Christianitie hauing bene in Brittanie planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius and continued more then a 100. yeares before Eleutheâ—ius was perfect Christianitie To passe ouer that peâ—ke of troubles in which Bristow placeth me because I do
quietly coÌ„fesse that Augustine brought much superstitioÌ„ into this Island yet not the whole substance of Poperie but the principal most necessarie grounds of Christianitie where I affirmed that in many things the faith religion of the old Saxons was contrarie to that the Papists now do hold as by diuers monuments of antiquitie may be proued Bristowe with a double negatiue would haue it seeme impossible Because in S. Bedes storie and in all his workes c. we find nothing against the Pope nor against any one point of his doctrine What I haue found in S. Bedes storie and other monuments of the Saxons religion I haue set forth in confutation of Stapletons Fortresse As for that printed Saxon Homily which is against real presence transubstantiation which Bristowe saith was so soone so diligently called in againe it is abroad in the hands of many neuer called in that euer I heard of but hath since the first setting forth of it bene printed three or foure times in Maister Foxes booke of Actes and Monumentes In the tenth and twelfth Demands of Miracles and visions where I had cited the admonition of the Apostle 2. Thessalon 2. that the comming of Antichrist should be in all lying signes and wonders Bristowe asketh me what Scripture telleth me that after the reuelation of Antichrist there shall be none but feigned miracles Wheras I inferred no such thing vpon the text but shew euen that which he blameth me not to haue shewed howe to knowe seigned miracles from vnfeigned namely by the doctrine which they are saide to confirme according to the Scripture Deut. 13. Where I saide that Augustine De vnit eccle cap. 16. will allowe no miracles and visions for sufficient proofes without the authoritie of Scriptures Bristowe saith I doe shamefully abuse my reader for he saith expressely What so euer such thinges are done in the Catholike Church therefore they are to be allowed because they are done in the Catholike Church Yea sir but it followeth that the Church is not shewed to be Catholike because such things are done but as he saith there and else where onely by the Scriptures But Bristowe will haue me allowe all the miracles that Saint Augustine speaketh of because they were done in the Catholike Church As though Saint Augustine made that the sufficient cause to allowe any thing that was done or saide to be done without ioyning that they were done to confirme the Catholike faith Cyprians miracles could not iustifie his error In the Popish Church the sectes of Dominicanes and Franciscanes in their dissention about the Conception of the virgin Marie boasted both of their miracles yet Bristowe will not I weene allowe both their miracles except he will allowe both their opinions which were contradictorie Againe many things are feigned euen in the Catholike Church by peruerse zeale to confirme truth as the historie of Paule and Tecla confessed by a Priest of Asia Tert. de bapt Neither wil Bristow I thinke defend that al the miracles contained in the Alcoran of Frances Vitas patrum Legendâ—â—â—rea dormi securè sermones discipuli promptuariuÌ„ exemplorum Festiual and liues of so manie Saints as are written be all true and none feigned although they all serue to proue Poperie Wherefore it may be that euen some of those miracles that S. Augustine doth report might of emulation and vnordered zeale be feigned by some Catholikes to winne credite to the Church against heretikes That Luther and Caluine whome he affirmeth not able to heale a lame horse attempted wonders it is as impudent a lie and grosse forgerie as that Liâ—danus telleth that Luther was begotten of the diuell And yet there be diuers horseleaches among the Protestants that haue healed more lame horses then euer S. Loy did either when he liued or since he was worshipped of the Papistes as an excellent horseleach Passing ouer 5. Demandes which he doth only name In the 18. of destroying idolatrie he saith that to all that he said I say nothing but like a cuckowe You haue not destroied idolatrie but set vp idolatrie not waying saith Bristowe that I tell him according to the Prophets that we haue throughly conuerted all nations from idolatrie that we haue made them forget also the names of their idols In deede that which Bristow telleth me is of great weight and therefore I am belike to blame to wey it no more but as bare wordes without matter and winde without reason or authoritie Otherwise I thinke I haue proued that the Papistes haue conuerted fewe nations from Paganisme and them whome they haue turned they haue rather chaunged the idols then taken away the idolatrie or rather the verie names then the idols themselues seeing there was neuer an idol almost among the Gentiles but they retaine the idolatrie vnder the name of one Saint or other They had Castor and Pollux you haue Loy and George they had Februa or Febris you haue Fiacre that which Iuno Lucina was to their women the virgine Marie is to yours c. In the 19 Demaund of Kings and Emperors Bristowe saith that although I chalenge the Kings of the first 600 yeares to be of our religion yet I bring no proofe at all as though the proofe of the doctrine of saluation receiued in that time which we hold is no proofe at all But I 〈◊〉 not aunswered so much as that Allen alledgeth â—â—we Constantinus receiued the sentence of the priestes 〈◊〉 at Nice as pronounced of God What neede any 〈…〉 were to this we honour it likewise But Bristowe such I confesse there was praier for his soule according 〈◊〉 the error of his time And he addeth that there was 〈◊〉 for his soule with intercession of the Apostles in 〈…〉 ose honour it was offered at their reliques and their â—â—mple and all by procurement of Constantinus him selfe Euseb. in vita Const. lib 4. cap. 58. 59. 60. 66. 71. First cap. 58. there is nothing but that Constantine builded a Church which should be called the memorie of the Apostles Cap. 59. followeth the description of the same Church and his intent that the memorie of Christes Apostles by that sumptuous building should be continued alwaies among all nations Cap. 60. his purpose is shewed that he being buried there might be made partaker of the praiers that should be there made in the honour of the Apostles meaning the praiers made to God which manie moued by deuotion of that glorious memorie of the Apostles should make Cap. 66. is nothing but a description of a magnificent funerall pompe prepared Cap. 71. are those praiers which the people made for his soule that I spake of and beside that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The tombe of the thrise happie soule beautified with the name of the Apostles and adioined to the people of God and made worthie of the diuine ceremonies and mysticall liturgie or seruice and inioining the communion of holie praiers But of sacrifice for his soule with the
describeth that which was seldome or neuer vsed among them rather then that which was vniformely obserued in all their meetinges But out of the scripture I reason affirmatiuely reiecting all the beggerly ceremonies of poperie because God is to be worshipped in spirite truth and yet in an other place I admit som furniture therefore saith Bristowe that I haue misused this text with much babbling to little purpose Mine answere is that although some external rites are necessarie for order and decencie yet the true and proper worshippe of God is onely in spirite and veritie and consisteth not in externall rites no not when they are best vsed Secondly against popishe lessons responses versicles lewde lyes and vncertaine tales read and songe as Gods seruice c. I alledged Mathewe 15. In vaine doe they worship me c. Here he taxeth mine ignorance in the scripture saying that the precepts of men are those which be of men and not of GOD. And are not lewde lyes and vncertaine tales such yea all your vaine distinctions of popish seruice for which you cannot shewe any one commaundement of GOD nor allowance of the Godly Church but of the synagogue of Sathan which your beggerly Logike craueth in this aunswere to be taken for the Catholike Church of Christ. After this he chargeth me to falsifie the Councel of Laodicea cap. 59. when I say it decreed That nothing should be song or read in the Church but the Canonicall bookes of the holie Scripture Vnto which accusation I aunswere that I gaue the summe of the Councel truely and without any falsification That nothing should be read in the Church beside the Canonicall bookes of the Scripture which are there named Bristowe confesseth and the wordes of the Canon are plaine This is sufficient to ouerthrowe Popish lessons where of nine most commonly not one is of the Scripture But Bristowe will make three Councels of Carthage ca. 47. to expound this Canon of Laodicea where it is commaunded that nothing be read vnder the name of the diuine Scriptures but only the Canonical Scriptures If this exposition were allowed yet Popish seruice is not discharged for therein the Machabees and other Apocryphall Scriptures which the Councel of Laodicea doth reiect are read as the diuine Scriptures And as for matters to be soung the Councel reiecting Psalmes made by vnskilfull persons meaneth to admit none but either the Psalmes and Hymnes of the Scripture or at least such as are consonant vnto them and therefore would neuer haue admitted that blasphemous versicle or what the diuel so euer you call it Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend Make vs Christ to climbe whither Thomas did ascend Nor a great number of such not onely vnlearned songs but wicked and hereticall ditties that are contained in your Popish portuise Where I said the festiuall daies were kept of the primitiue Church not in honour of the Saints as they are of the Papistes but only for the memorie of the Martyrs c. to imitation Bristowe opposeth a saying of Augustine which to imitation addeth consociation to the merites and aide of their praiers Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. As for fellowship of their worthinesse is the fruit of imitation the helpe of their praiers is a smacke of that declining time which Bristowe alwaies obtrudeth to vs as the onely primitiue Church which I vnderstand for the first Church of the Apostles and that which was most auncient next vnto them Where I cite out of Augustine de ver rel cap. 55. that Saints and Angels were of Christians in his time honoured with loue not with seruice for imitation not for religion First Bristowe asketh whether he doth not expressely here auouch their honouring Yes verily and as expressely he denieth that they are to be honoured with seruice of religion But seruitus with Bristowe is not the Latine of the Greeke word Dulia it is but mine vnacquaintance is Saint Augustines writings If mine acquaintance in S. Augustines writings were as smal as his skill is in the Greeke language I might be accounted a great straunger in them But let vs heare what Bristowes familiaritie with Saint Augustine hath found of the signification of Dulia De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 1. Latriam quippe nostri vbicunque c. Where so euer in the holie Scriptures is put Latria our interpreters haue translated it seruitus c. verie well therefore the olde Latine interpreters iudged Latria and Doulia to be all one For euen so haue they translated Doulia alwaies by the word seruitus as Exod 6. 13 20. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 5. Heb. 2. Wherefore Saint Augustine not finding a proper Latine worde to expresse the worship of God and chosing Latria the Greeke word doth onely shewe howe it was his pleasure to vse the terme and not what the worde doth properly signifie For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in signification as euen Suidas doth confesse although he say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a seruice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wages And therefore like a learned Grecian Bristowe saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonomum to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neuer vsed but for worship of GOD or superstition or religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a generall name for any kinde of seruice due either to GOD or men But what shall I reason with such a blocke as challengeth all authenticall seruice that euer hath bene in any Church to be the Popish seruice although it differ from it both in forme and matter euen as before he saide that Iustines description is the verie summe of the Masse Concerning the tongue in which the seruice is Bristowe saith it maketh no difference in the seruice it selfe but because I holde that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues he will consider my groundes thereof First the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians proueth it not because he speaketh there of a miraculous gift of tongues A strong reason I promise you nay much rather if a speciall gift of the holie Ghoste must giue place to the edifying of the Church much rather an vnknowne tongue superstitiously vsurped must be abolished Secondly he saith Saint Paule doth not reiect the gift but moderate it for the varietie of certaine much like to some Protestantes that thinke all learning to be the tongues and quoteth Pur. 7. It was not meete that Saint Paule should reiect a gift of the holie Ghost but shewe the right vse of it But where Bristowe noteth me to thinke all learning to be the tongues and quoteth the place he sheweth him selfe to bee a shamelesse lier for although I exemplifie such learning as is most necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures by knowledge of tongues and rationall sciences yet it followeth
without succession vnto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood But let vs see what balde reason he bringeth to proue that we haue translated the Priesthood First we haue laboured to chaunge the Apostolicall names of Episcopus and Presbyter into superintendent elder So a translation out of Greeke into Latine or English is a chaunge with him and such as may not be abidden for he reproueth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian an elder Secondly I helpe an other argument of theirs concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchie is no part of Christian Ministerie by which I declare that we haue chaunged the Priesthoode of the Primitiue Church which had Popish Bishops Priestes Deacons Subdeacons Exorcistes Cantors Acolytes Ostiaries for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named either in the Greeke or Latine computation of Grynaeus I confesse the names are auncient and the offices in the Primitiue Church were some necessarie some profitable but I speake of the Popish Hierarchie in which nothing remaineth but the names But Bristowe thinketh I do not consider that S. Paule nameth there the onely Ministers of the worde or preachers Yes verily and therfore I exclude all these Popish orders which are such euery one of them as may be and are giuen to men that are no preachers or ministers of the word As for the order of Christian Deacons for ministring to the poore and Elders of gouernement I knowe they are not to be sought in that rehearsall But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith belong to the ministerie of the altar the Scripture speaketh no one word of them Yet he saith I may see the distinction of them Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine Concerning the first place I knowe not what he meaneth except he thinke Paule and Barnabas were not Apostles before handes were laid on them and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles Or else that those Prophetes and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter had nowe orders which howe he proueth I maruell specially seeing other Papistes doe vnderstand the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ministring for their sacrificing As for the other place is of Elders of gouernement and not Priestes of the Altar That the auncient writers vsed the names of Sacerdotes Leuitae Pontifices it was not because the ministers of the Gospell are a species or kinde of them but abusiuely for a certaine similitude of the Leuiticall order and Priesthoode with the ministers of the word and sacraments Thirdly he saith the Apostles Bishops and Priestes were made by other Bishops and Priestes ours by Lay men as of Kings and ciuile Magistrates which is an impudent slaunder Fourthly wee confesse their orders to bee good ynough because we reorder not them which is false for I saide their admission of the Church is a newe calling Bristowe saith that is a newe way to giue orders shewing him selfe ignorant that euen in the olde Church suche as were ordained by some heretikes were receiued after they had abiured their heresie to continue in the degree of the Cleargie as of the Nouatians Concil Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling O your Diuinitie O your Scripture as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington not to be a mocke Bishop but his excellent learning and diligent preaching c. I passe ouer as also the great preaching which nowe at the last is in Popish countries where within these threescore yeares was as great silence as in England at the same time Fiftly arguments neede not where I denie all Priesthoode but the spirituall Priesthoode common to all Christians Sixtly If I will inuent a thirde Priesthoode hee saith that the Primitiue or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchisedech and to offer sacrifice in breade and wine as Melchisedek Christ did Beware what you say of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you Christ as by Melchisedek But you regarde not our arguments they be but obiections At leastwise I pray you answere our obiections or else they wil be argumentes to proue you all blasphemous vsurpers of Christs singular priesthood But that you wil doe at leasure first you will proue your priesthood out of Augustine Contr. aduers. Leg. Prophet Lib. Cap. 19 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchisedek and yet but a sacrifice of praise So that you haue neither your sacrifice propitiatorie whereof the controuersie is nor your particular priesthood for he saith The Church from the Apostles time c. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise c. not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck Now who knoweth not that the sacrifice of praise is a spiritual sacrifice common to al the Church and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood So that S. Augastine naming the order of Melchisedek alludeth to those places of the scripture in which all Christians are called a royall priesthood Kinges and priestes 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but neuer intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ confirmed to him by oath Psalm 110. and which passeth not from him Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church If you obiect He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them I answere although the ministration of the sacrament be proper vnto them yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration is common to the whole Church as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth So that although a sacrifice be graunted yet a special priesthood is not proued But the sacrifice of the crosse was both of thankesgiuing of propitiatiō he troweth and therfore the memoriall sacrifice of the altar to be the one what doth it let to be the other This argument standing vpon Bristowes trowing and confounding the members of a diuision shall haue none other answere for me The places that I cite out of Ambrose ad virg laps de virgin Lib. 1. to proue that he vseth the names of sacrifice and propitiation vnproperly as other of the fathers doe Bristow will not allow as sufficient saying I might as wel so argue that S. Paule speaketh vnproperly because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing sacrifice whereas the Apostle Heb. 10. saith Christs body by death to be made a sacrifice And what offence is it to say S. Paule speaketh vnproperly where he speaketh figuratiuely as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow there is great difference but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it which confoundeth the propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ with the eucharisticall sacrifice of Christians as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Crosse the one could not be offered without death of the
sacrifice and sacrificer the other is offered continually the sacrificer liuing As for his rule to know proper and vnproper speaches let him trie to teach his pupils when I am disposed to learne I will chuse a better learned teacher But now he coÌ„meth to answere obiections First I sayd the bringing foorth of bread and wine was no part of Melchisedeks priesthood seeing the Apostle comparing him with Christ in all thinges in which he was comparable neuer teacheth it as any part of his priesthood This argument Bristow maketh to be of one place of Scripture negatiuely not consideting it is the onely place where such comparison is made and that it is absurd to thinke the Apostle would omit so principall a part of Melchisedeks and Christs priesthood But Bristow will examine the text First their vulgar translation begining at proferens both gelding the text falsely translating At verò Melchisedek rex Salem proferens panem vinum erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi benedixit ei c. But truly Melchisedek King of Salem bringing foorth bread and wine for he was the priest of the highest GOD blessed him saying What doth this context helpe him which is as much to say as he blessed him because he was a priest Bristow fraudulently omitteth the parenthesis and in translation changeth the participle into the verbe But in the Hebrue If we beleeue Bristowe the poynting declareth that also the Rabbines themselues take it in the same sort What a greate Rabbine is Bristowe sodenly growne to be since his departure out of Oxforde But what poynting should declare this he sheweth not neither can I gesse The text is And Melchisedek King of Salem brought foorth bread and wine there is the middle of the verse then it followeth And he was a Priest of the highe GOD there is the end then it followeth And he blessed him c. In deede Rabby Salomon but not in respect of any poynting sayth of the bringing foorth of bread and wine for a true exposition First that it was vsuall to doe so to men that were wearied in warre also that thereby he shewed that he was not offended with him for killing of his Children for he taketh Melchisedek to be Sem the middle sonne of Noach Secondly for a Mideash or vaine exposition that it was to signifie the Minchoth and Nesecuth the meat offeringes and the drinke offeringes which his children or posteritie should offer in that place not that Melchisedek in respecte that he was a Prieste did bring foorth bread and wine But all the Fathers doe agree in this similitude of Melchisedeches Priesthood with CHRIST I knowe that many doe so but one Apostle is of greater authoritie then they all yet none of them all speaketh of a Priesthoode to offer vp the naturall bodie of Christ in a propitiatorie sacrifice which is the principall matter in question But if Melchisedek were a Prieste Bristowe will aske me what was his sacrifice if it were not bread and wine seeing none other is mentioned For my part I am not ashamed to be ignorant of that which the Holy Ghost hath not reueiled Sure I am if bread and wine had beene his sacrifice and the sacrifice of Christ also the Apostle would not haue omitted it which compareth much smaler matters in him with Christ then that Where I say it is horrible blasphemie to challenge the Priesthoode according to the order of Melchisedek which is singular to Christ Psalm 110. and Heb. 7. Bristowe asketh if the scripture say not that there is one baptizer which is Christ and yet all are not blasphemers that are baptisers I answere if any take vpon him to baptise with the holy ghost and with fire he is an horrible blasphemer But to baptise with water that is to be ministers of the outwarde sacrament in which onely Christ baptiseth inwardly Christ hath called all those ministers of his word and sacramentes Shewe you the like calling for your blasphemous Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek or else your example of baptisers will not discharge you of horrible blasphemie But you haue another docterlike argument when you haue scoffed out my poore doctershippe Were not all the rest in the olde time the ministers of Aaron but Aaron himselfe was Priest onely in his owne time and after him euerie one in his time was Priest as well as he and therefore in that law were many Priestes He asketh the question as though it were out of question Were not all c. O famous and illuminate doctor where did your docters hoode learne that all the high Priestes successiuely whereof euerie one was a figure of Christ as much as Aaron were ministers of Aaron For you speake of high Priestes or else what meane you to say that Aaron him selfe was priest onely in his owne time for all his sonnes were priests although he onely the high priest in his time Vpon this stronge foundation you build a similitude and dissimilitude So that the olde testament was like to England since the conquest hauing successiuely many Kinges But the newe testament is like to England duduring the time of one King who being but one yet hath many ministers as one might say so many ministerial kinges You shew learning ynough in this similitude and dissimilitude to make you a doctor after the popes order But let vs vnder correctioÌ„ of your doctors hood examine your coÌ„parisoÌ„ The olde Testament was like England since the Conquest hauing successiuely many Kings Had not euerie of those kings many Ministers vnder them And euerie Aaronicall priest had also many Priestes and Leuites vnder him And was not Christ head of the Church of the Iewes in the seuerall times of euery the high Priest Wherefore the olde testament is as like to England during the time of one King as the newe in those pointes but the difference is this that the figuratiue high priestes were many because they could not continue but by death were alwaies chaunged Christ being an euerlasting Priest hath a priesthoode that descendeth not by succession so that although he haue many ministers yet he onely hath the euerlasting priesthoode which is according to the order of Melchisedek Heb. 7. As for your terme of ministeriall kings howe well it agreeth to your shauen crownes I will not stand here to discusse My third argument as Bristowe calleth it is this The Apostle to the Hebrues cap. 10. teacheth vs that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sinnes and that but once cap. 9. hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified that our sinnes are taken away by that sacrifice and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sinnes left To this Brisâ—owe aunswereth that I doe not vnderstand what the Apostle meaneth by those that are sanctified by their making perfect by sacrifice for sinne The sanctified are onely the newe baptized by his iudgement for which he quoteth 1. Cor 6. where the Apostle saith But nowe you are washed you
sacrifice is made celebrated with prayer as Hierom saith by the pâ—iestes prayers What are then the wordes of consecration And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also was Domus orationis the howse of prayer Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer So is Tertullian answered Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth they say the same Yea doe Bristowe Is the sacrifice you offer the bodie of Christ Yea doth the conscience of the offerer sanctifie the body of Christ Out vpon thee filthie blasphemous dogge if thou dare affirme it But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine As though that were the question Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion no lesse then we doe in the masse What newes is this doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse I thinke euen the same for none that communicate with Caluine doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood and no more doe you although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it In the 25. demaund of Monkes where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes Bristowe saith in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes and Idolatrie we haue spoyled the Church of God of great vtilitie But he saith further they were votaries and so they be not in colledges of studentes their vowes were not such that could make them other then students they vowed to serue God vprightly and his Church when they were called and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same forsake this holie purpose haue smale commendation among studentes I know in time superstition preuailed and that which first was free at last became coact and that which was of conueencie was thought of necessitie euen as true religion declined and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition In the 27. demaund of Councels where I proue that Councels may erre First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel Bristowe saith the prayer is not in respect for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members when in the prayer they expresly declare their feare lest ignorance hath driuen them into error which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life but of their error in decrees seeing the prayer is appropriate vnto the Councel And that the wordes going before after do manifestly declare Te in nostris principiis c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes that is that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error that to our perfect desires thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke And because our conscience accusing vs we doe fainte for feare lest either ignorance hath drawne vs into errror or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vs to decline from iustice therfore we desire thee we pray thee that if we haue drawne vnto vs any offence in the celebritie of this Councell thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it and to make it remissible Who would pray thus in the name of the whole Councell which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error That I alledge out of Augustine de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed the later by the former Bristowe vnderstandeth of Councells not confirmed by the Pope which may be reformed euen by the see Apostolike alone That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells where lacketh any necessarie confirmation This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops in possibility of erring in doctrine not excepting the Bishop of Rome then prouinciall last of all generall Councells onely the scripture cannot be amended as that which hath no error in it Where I saide the Councells are receiued because they decreed truly according to the worde of God and not the truth receiued because it was decreed in Councells Bristowe saith I might as well say the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures But I say the comparison is not like For truth is not so necessarilie bound vnto generall Councells as it is to the holy scriptures and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures It followeth not so of councells that what soeuer they haue decreed is truth although the Bishop of Rome haue confirmed them Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine which is an argument sufficient to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions The pope caÌ„not erre The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope cannot erre In the 28. demaunde of the See Apostolike where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing the Bishop of Rome were not heretikes Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure which is no matter in question saith he vsurped no authoritie nor was so charged but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent it would seeme likewise to many who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops that withstoode Victor confessed that he had authoritie ouer them or that he could not erre But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure seeing he followeth as he thought the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles Likewise Eusebius saith that Victor was sharply reproued of many and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce whom he gouerned Yea he saith expresly that Victor
with his censure was countermanded by many Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did countermaund him or gaue him contrarie commaundement to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie and loue of his neighbour Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things wherein they differed declared that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought but that the Bishop of Rome might erre The other example I brought was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome misliked by Dionysius Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 c. sharply reproued by Cyprian accusing him of presumption and contumacie Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus and almost all the Churches of Asia thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes should be baptized againe Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant nor so presumptuous that he would say he held the primacie and that other men should obey him as his inferiors Bristowe saith none of these denied the primacie of Peter I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie although Cyprian in the same place saith For neither Peter whom our lord chose first which argueth no primacie but of order vpō whom he builded his Church when Paule did afterward dissent from him about circumcision did boast him self or take vpon him any thing insolently or arrogantly that he should say he held the primacie and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie and certaintie of trueth against al men But Bristowe saith when there was no remedie but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them they did like Catholike men for all their Councels conforme their newe practise to the old custome and quoteth August de bapt cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. 25. where there is no such matter also he referreth vs to his fift Demaund where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement being admonished in a vision and that he had learned that not nowe onely but of olde time both in Aphrica and other places the trueth was receiued c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes if they dissented from the bishop of Rome there is no word The place of Hierome ad Euagrium which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church against a custome of the Church of Rome Bristowe saith doth not proue a Church a rule of trueth and Christianitie without the bishop and Church of Rome because Hierome saith as also there I cite Nec altera c. we must not thinke that there is one Church of the citie of Rome and an other of all the world c. By which wordes he sheweth that the Church of Rome if she will be a member of the Catholike Church must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome Where I say we beleeue the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ vnto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth Bristowe obiecteth suppose that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime as farre as the Church reacheth To this impossible supposition I aunswere that one King should haue no more authoritie than euerie King hath nowe But Bristowe obiecteth that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers c. Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike I would pull them downe In the motiue of Apes he discharged me from being a Puritane by his censure but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre that I should also be a traitour as he and all his fellowes are To his wise obiection I aunswere that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers so they are no Ecclesiasticall but ciuill Magistrates and the Church may be without them as it was many hundreth yeares Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians they haue chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had Dauid Solomon Iehosophat Ezechias Iosias c. But Christ professing that all power is giuen him Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie he might commit what authoritie he would and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe teach and baptize◠and to one of them singularly feede my lambes and my sheepe No maruel though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe Christ saide to one feede my lambes and sheepe therefore he saide it singularly and he hath vniuersall charge and all his successors to But for the Popes supremacie the Apostle saith expresly 1. Cor. 12. the heade vnder Christ can not say to the feete you are not necessarie to me But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse vnder Christ when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and the whole church also is like If you seeke the head of euery seuerall congregation you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof but if you seeke the head of the whole Church the scripture teacheth but one which is Christ for one head vnder another in one whole body is monstrous But you thinke perhaps Christ as he is head of his Church may say to the feete he hath no neede of them and therefore it must be vnderstoode of an head vnder Christ but then you must remember that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe yet as he vouchsafeth to take vpon him this office to be head of the Church he is not perfect without al his members which is the singular comfort of Gods children Ephe. 1. ver last But Saint Paule Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith vnder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie This cause is a shameles and senseles lie for no antiquitie for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed the see or the decrees therof Again what reason is it that Peters successors should be included more thē the successors of the other Apostles seeing this souereigntie of Peter is not grounded vpon his Apostleship but vpon his Bishoplike office as Sander maintaineth As for the principalitie of Apostleship principalitie of the Apostles chaire which he quoteth out of August de bapt Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. epi. 162. haue often bene shewed to be vnsufficient to make euery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in
determined against it In the 36. Demand of Owners or Keepers of the scriptures where I say the primitiue Church which commendeth the scripture vnto vs doth not condemne Luther or his doctrine for heresie Bristowe saith it doth in Aerius Iouinian Vigilantius c. as though there were no primitiue Church before these men which commended the scripture vnto vs and yet knewe neither praier for for the deade nor superstition of reliques or any thing that Luther held with those men Where I taxe the blindnesse of the Popish Church not discerning the scriptures Canonicall from Apocryphall Bristowe bringeth in a saying of Augustine shewing that it is of necessitie for him to beleeue the Actes of the Apostles if he beleeue the Gospell because the Catholike authoritie commendeth both the scriptures alike vnto him But I haue shewed that the Maccabees Ecclesiasticus Iudeth c. are not commended to vs by the Catholike or vniuersall authoritie of the Church After other contentious pointes stoutly affirmed or denied without proofe he commeth to charge me with a substantiall lie because I say our Church which is the onely true Catholike Church hath alwaies had right and possion of the worde of God as appeareth by this that our Church beleueth nothing but that she learneth in them If this be not a notable plea Bristowe reporteth him to our Lawiers But I report me to al Logicians whether it be not a good argument by prouing vs to be the true Church to claime continuall right and possession of the scriptures as for the noueltie of Luther our cōgregatiō is a weake plea to dispossesse vs of the Church when y◠antiquitie of our faith and religion proueth vs to be of the oldest Church and therefore the only true Church Where Allen made his offer that if I could shewe any Church that hath safely kept the scriptures sauing the Popish Church he would recant I shew him the Greeke and Easterne Churches which are not Popish whervpon he is bound by his offer to recant yet Bristowe without all shame saith Euery article of D. Allens is not to proue absolutely that we be the Church but some only that you be not the Church True it is that neither euery one nor any of them all are sufficient to proue that you are the Church and not we But that Allen meant they were sufficient it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant if any of them can be proued to agree to any other than to the Popish Church In the eight and thirtie Demand of old Heresies where I shewed that many of the Popish ceremonies were first instituted by heretikes aunswering directly to Allens challenge that offered to recant if any man could proue that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies Bristowe saith they are such matters as agree none otherwise to them then to those whome I dare not condemne c. Which if it were so yet doth it not shewe but that I haue aunswered Allens challenge and therefore do according to his promise claime his recantation Of the Messalians or Martyrians I saide they learned first to shaue their beardes and let their lockes growe long Bristowe out of Epiphanius saith they did let their haire growe long like women The Popish Priestes doe not so but round them Yet can he not proue out of Epiphanius that the Messalians did not keepe their haire in order by rounding or otherwise Further he saith some Protestants doe so I aunswere none of ceremonie doth so Thirdly Priestes in Italie and Spaine doe poll their heads and keepe their beardes I answere they keepe the text of the decree and you the glosse which saith statuimus id est abrogamus c. We decree that is we abrogate that Clearkes neither weare long haire nor shaue their beardes Last of all he saith I haue no great matters to charge them with when I lay their haires to their charge My reply is that my charge goeth no further then Allens challenge which vrgeth me to shewe any other to haue first instituted any one ceremonie in Poperie but the Popes only Catholike Church And so I say to the superstitious masking garmentes instituted by the Pharisees although the auncient Church about foure or fiue hundreth yeares after Christe receiued such robes in vse Also the daily vse of Popish holie water to put men in minde of baptisme had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptized or washed euerie day Here Bristowe with a verie stale iest acknowledgeth their fault and layeth it vpon Saint Paule who hath deceiued them Rom. 6. where baptisme is in deede remembred but holie water I trowe is not there O then it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paule was to blame saith Bristowe to tell vs that the creatures of God are sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer Wonderfull Diuinitie that can bring Popish holie water to so holie a beginning No maruell if we be blinde which thinke the Apostle speaketh there of the lawfull vse of meates forbidden by the Pope and of all other of Gods creatures being sanctified by the worde of God which giue vs the vse so by praier that we may vse them well But specially saith Bristowe he was to blame for saying The holy Ghost doth helpe our weaknesse praying for vs with groanes vnspeakeable how so euer blinde heretikes thinke he will doe nothing by water for praier In deede when the scriptures be so plaine for holie water it is wonder that any be so blinde they can see it Of the Ossenes I saide they tooke their hallowing of water salt oyle breade c. and vse to sweare by them Bristow asketh if I be an Anabaptist that will condemne all swearing or swearing by creatures I aunswere I will not condemne all swearing but this customable swearing of Papistes by this bread by this salt c. and as for swearing by creatures I am of the same iudgement that our Sauior Christ is Matth. 5. 34. But Papistes sweare not by them as the Ossenes did what then the controuersie is not therein but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholers a praier in a straunge tongue whose interpretation they might not seeke whome the Papistes followe in teaching the people to pray in a tongue vnknowne and will not if they may chose let them knowe the interpretation Bristowe aunswereth that Epiphanius saith his praier was nothing at all when it was interpreted Is it like Epiphanius would say so Howe could it be interpreted if it had no signification Epiphanius in deed sheweth it was a vaine thing whereof he made so great a mysterie and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the Lordes prayer the Salutation and the creede make vaine and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their wordes together truly The Marcosians in baptisme vsed for greater admiration certaine Hebrewe wordes so doe the papistes Bristowe asketh whie S.
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
as they write of be orderly successions By the time of these Fathers saith Bristowe there had bene foure schismes Ar. 85. Aunswere In the first proposition I speake of Tertullians time and succession of doctrine and name succession simplie In the second proposition I speake of the whole time vntill our dayes and of succession of persons and of orderly succession therefore no contradiction The fourth It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles it retained by succession that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contra he chargeth it with sundrie errors here cap. 3. 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes and eight Popes for the supremacie I might aunswere that the charging of the Popes chargeth not the Church but in the first proposition I spake of the Church of Rome in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian holding the doctrine of the Apostles contrarie to those heresies against which they write The fift It was a true Church and Apostolike Church a faithfull Church true and Apostolike faith and religion haue dwelled in her Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra The Church of Rome neuer preached the trueth She neuer had since she first arose the ministring of sacraments according to Christes institution The true Catholike Church hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes But the Popish Church was neuer able to encounter with heretikes Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns but neuer did good to Christians I am able to proue that the primitiue Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27. The latter part of this contradiction with as many falsifications as there be quotations doe sufficiently declare that in all those places I speake of the Popishe Church of Rome that nowe is and not of the true Church which of olde time was at Rome Yet to giue the reader a taste of his falsification of my wordes Ar. 106. which hee rehearseth thus Rome may be a nurse c. in truth they are these Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of mans traditions in steade of the milke of Gods worde and will rather see them famish than they should taste of Gods worde may well bee a nurse of Antichristians but neuer did good vnto Christians The sixt The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie whereof the whore beareth a cuppe full out of which all nations haue dronke Ar. 102. 38. Euen from the Apostles â—ime the diuell neuer left to set in his foote for his sonne Antichristes dominion vntill he had placed him in the temple of God and prepared the wide world for his walke and then came the generall defection Pur. 287. Contra all nations neuer consented to the doctrine of the Papistes For it hath bene often saide the Greeke Church and all other Orientall Churches of Assa and Africa neuer receiued the Popish religion in many chiefe points and specially in acknowledging the Popes authoritie they will not vnto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholike nor her authoritie to be lawfull Ar. 38. 16 33. 34. These places being both full of falsifications yet if they had bene in so many wordes set downe by me imploy no contradiction For it may be that all nâ—tions meaning as the scripture whose wordes I cite Apoc. 18. not all of euerie nation but some of all nations haue dronke of the whores cup and yet neuer receiued her religion in al things And the general defection is meant of that great apostasie that S. Paul speaketh of in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ though they fall not all to the Pope For many are fallen to Mahomet many reuolted to idolatrie many to other heresies beside Poperie The 7. The religion of Papistes came in and preuailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his AntichristiaÌ„ exaltatioÌ„ to wit Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the heade of all the Church Ar. 36. Contra in the same place Because you speak of the first entring of Popish religion which dependeth chiefly vpon the Popes authoritie it first beganne to aduaunce it selfe in Victor about the yeare of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here Popish religion in one piece first beganne to aduaunce it selfe Anno 200. and after came in and preuailed Anno 607. The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie Euen in the Apostles time and from that time in all times when so euer and where so euer was any piece of myste or darke corner there were the steppes of your walke It may be a shame for you Papistes to leaue and condemne for heresie all that is true in the Fathers writings and agreeable to the scriptures Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papistes from the great heresies and open aduersaries that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith as the Valentinians Marcionistes Manichees Arrians Sabellians and such like monsters Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction which is not of the religion of the Papistes but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the auncient Fathers which among the Papistes are growne to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians Marcionistes c. And yet there can be no contradiction where the subiectes of both propositions are not all one But here the one is of the Popish Church which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan the other is of the religion of Papistes The Papistes by communion of the diuels Church communicate with all heresies The 9. We say not that the religion of Papistes came in soudenly but that it entred by small degrees at the first and therefore â—aâ—â—esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies not preached against winked at because it had a shewe of Pietie and Charitie and at length allowed of Augustine and others who followed the common errors of their time Specially when a generall defection and departing from the faith was foreshewed what marueile were it if none colde preach against it as it first entred Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra The Church of Christ in such places as she is suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion without open reprehension Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries as that I should say The religion of papistes was not preached against c. Winked at c. Allowed of Augustine c. For I neuer said so of the whole religion of papists but of some fewe errors budding vp in antient times But both Ar. 36. where I aske What maruaile c. as an obiection I doe neuerthelesse shewe who preached against the vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome which yet tended not to a damnable error Ar. 38. I affirme there was both preaching
of Christe heareth the voice of Christe and is ruled thereby The church of GOD is the piller and stay of truth so called because that where so euer the church is either visible or inuisible there is the trueth Saint Paule by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers howe great a burthen and charge they sustaine that the trueth of the Gospell can not be continued in the world but by their ministerie in the church of God which is the piller and stay of truth This their duetie true preachers considering are diligent in their calling to preach the trueth As our church is the piller and stay of trueth so is she also the house of trueth which knoweth nothing but him that is the trueth it selfe Iesus Christ and his most holy Scripture in which this trueth is signed and testified We require you to beleeue the true Catholike church onely and immediatly againe to the contrarie We require you not to beleeue any one companie of men more than an other Ar. 82. 81. 93. 99. 62. 77. 100. 108. 62. This contradiction is easily reconciled The true Church may erre but not in any point that is necessarie to euerlasting saluation We require men to beleeue the true Catholike Church only not for the companie but for the trueth 34 The error of Purgatorie and praying for the deade is continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christe vnto a plaine departing away into the church of Antichrist Contra The tâ—ue and onely church of God is so guided by Gods spirite and directed by his word that she can not induce any damnable error to conâ—â—nâ—â— No nor suffereth any man daÌ„nably abusing her religion without open reprehension and yet Purgatorie c. came in with silence The error of praying for the dead was not damnable while it continued in the Church of Christ the Church of Antichrist by derogating full satisfaction from the bloud of Christ hath made it damnable 35 The church of Christ hath of the holie Ghost a iudgement to discerne true writings from counterfets and the worde of GOD of infallible veritie from the writing of men which might erre She hath commended the bookes of holy Scripture to be beleeued of all true Christians We persuade vs of the authoritie of Gods booke because we haue most stedfast assurance of Gods spirite for the authoritie of it with the testimonie of the true church in all ages Ar. 5. 4. 9. Contra All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you For other writings may be counted the workes of their authours without your censure the holy Scripture may not be counted the worde of God except you list so to allow it Other writings are of credite according to the authoritie of the writers The holie Scriptures with you houe not credite according to the authoritie of God the authour of them but according to your determination Pur. 219. Here is no shewe of contradiction but a wretched begging of the principle that the Popish Church is the true Church of Christ. Of such contradictions you may make not 50 but 500000. 36 Those that by true Christians haue bene called and counted for heretikes haue proued so in deede Ar. 65. Contra This Demaund hath a false principle that the church ought to be a Christian mans onely it is not in Doctor Allens principle stay in al troubles and tempestes The first proposition is an Ironicall imitation of Allens absurd proposition and not an absolute assertion of mine 37 And therefore the Papistes being called and counted heretikes of true Christians that is of the Protestantes without doubt are heretikes in deede Ar 65. Contra. He is a foolish Sophister that reasoneth from names to things as you doe most vainely and childishly Ar. 66. The former proposition is the conclusion which I retort vpon Allens principle that whosoeuer by true christians are called heretikes do proue so in deede 38 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Ar. 86. Contra Augustines argument of the publike prayers of the church tooke no hold of the Pelagians by force of trueth that is in it but by their owne confession and graunt of that prayer to be godly and them to be of the church that so prayed But now the controuersie is not onely of the substance of doctrine but of the church it selfe also The Donatistes challenged the church to themselues Pur. 367. Here is not so much as any shadowe of contradiction for in the heresie of the Donatists the chiefest controuersy was of the Church as for the prayer of the Church they vsed it themselues as well as the true Catholikes out of which prayer Augustine gathereth an argument against them 39 But for the chiefe pointes of christian religion and the foundation of our faith that is Reall presence c. the most approued writers are vtterly against you and therefore can not be of your church Contra But the Lutheranes and Zuinglians as it pleaseth you to call them are of one true church although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament the one assirming a Reall presence the other denying it The contradiction is easily auoided by shewing that the reall presence among a number of thinges in that place rehearsed may be one chiefe point of religion and yet not a foundation of our faith For I say the auncient fathers agree with vs in the chiefe points of religion and the foundation of our faith which seeing the Lutherans hold with vs the dissent in one chiefe point of religion can not disseuer them from the Church and yet they dissent not vnto idolatrie as the Papists doe And where Bristow slandereth mee to say that I count the errors of some of that latter sort of old fathers in honoring reliques inuocation of Saints merits traditions vnwritten verities images of the crosse to be contrary to the foundation he is able to shewe no place where I so affirme And albeit they did so earnestly maintaine some of those errors that they condemned by their priuate sensure the contrary truth for heresies yet it followeth not that they were heretikes For it is one thing to hold an error earnestly an other to holde it obstinatly so that he is condemned of his owne conscience when he will not yeeld to the manifest truth plamly proued out of the worde of God 40 We knowe that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously erre in any article of faith concerning the substance of religion Luther Caluine and Bucer shall come with Christ to iudge the world As for Illyrians if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament and differ onely in ceremonies which can not diuide them from the faith Ar. 10. 61. Pur. 403. Contra What Flaccius or any such as he is hath saide neither doe I knowe neither doe I regard let them aunswere for them selues But whereas you charge M.
saith The third Councel of Carthage did define that it is vnlawfull to pray to God the Some and GOD the holy Ghost The Councel of Carthage by that decree denied neither the person nor office of Christ nor of the holy Ghost therefore they held the foundation 49 Here cap. 8. he saith that the iust of the olde Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death but to heauen immediatly Contra The fierie and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise was taken away by the death of Christ when he opened Paradise yea the kingdome of heauen whereof Paradise was but a sacrament vnto all beleeuers so that the penitent theese had passage into Paradise The vertue of Christes death extendeth to the old fathers for their saluation as much as vnto vs yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdome of heauen was the death of Christ by Gods ordinance appointed to worke righteousnesse for all the elect as well before the time of his suffering as since 50 Who so denieth the authoritie of the holy scriptures thereby bewraieth him selfe to be an heretike Contra I say not this here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretike to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames. As Martine Luther and Illyricus for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing My words be not alledged truely in neither of both propositions In the former they are these I will not gainesay but whoso denieth c. I doe not alwaies affirme that I will not gainesay I may be in doubt But to graunt that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint Iames to be a counterfet was not accounted an heretike Shall other mens account be ioyned to mine affirmation to charge me with contradiction Againe the former proposition Who so denieth c. If it be affirmed must be vnderstoode of such as denie the scriptures which are once receiued generally because they are contrary to his opinion If he meane the contradiction to be for that I say I will not excuse Martine and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint Iames for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing I must tell him that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them neither is foolish curiosity like by heresie Last of al where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to auoide a shameful absurditie ensuing of his affirmation he plaieth his old parts first in falsifying my words where I say to reduce he saith to redeeme secondly he saith that Allen speaketh of him that nowe leadeth a godly life but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance or satisfaction of his lothsome life past The very words of Allen be these This our aduersarie Math. 5. here signifieth our brother which hath iust quarell against vs in iudgemēt for that we would not giue eare vnto him sharply admonishing vs of our faults being therefore an aduersary to our vices and fleshly conuersation In which sort to vs that are flesh and bloud and ready to euill from our youth all be aduersaries that preach Christ the amendment of licentious maners repentance of our lothsome life past or else vse against vs the rod of correction and bodily punishment that our soules may be saued in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kinde of aduersary Christ counselleth and commandeth vs for our great good to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitorie life least all these meanes which he wrought to reduce vs to the perfection of a Christian godly life be as it were a witnesse of our contempt and him selfe our accuser before the Iudge that shall so iustly reward euerie man according to his deedes that is Christe him selfe to whome the father hath giuen all iudgement Nowe the wordes in which I reproue this absurditie of Allen are these But before we goe any further let vs see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before There we were told that Purgatorie serueth but for veniall sinnes or else for such mortall sinnes as by forgiuenesse in this life obtained are made veniall trespasses But here not onely vices and fleshly conuersation but also contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our lothsome life past c. are saide to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatorie to the vttermost farthing then the which no vice is more mortall nor further from forgiuenesse For he that not onely leadeth a lothsome life but also contemneth all those meanes that Christ hath wrought to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life I vse his owne wordes howe can he haue remission of his sinnes in this life and yet Maister Allen dare promise him that the tolleration of bandes in the prison of Purgatorie shall recompence his debt and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ. The twelfth Chapter A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke that they which delight in such a Gardiner may see his handie worke The first flower is that I say Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onely by the high Priest once in the yeare But Bristowe saith that sacrifice propitiatorie and for sinne are all one which sacrifice for sinne was offered not onely once in the yeare in the seast of expiation but also in many other feast dayes ordinarily and extraordinarily when so euer any occasion was ministred c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance or his malice Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie vnto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death Heb. 9 with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne saying they are all one When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie that the high Priest that day onely entreth into the holiest place that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel for all their sinnes once a yeare Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation of this principall sacrifice which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onely true sacrifice propitiatorie which our Sauiour Christ offered on the crosse once for al which proportion is obserued by the Apostle Heb 9. ver 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. c. Heb. 10. ver 11. 12. But where Bristow saith beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice Fulke findeth none but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe he affirmeth that which was neither said of me nor is truely collected of him For I saide that Cyprian in these termes sacrifice priest
Allens supposition that the ful force of Christs death would sup vp al sinne al paine for sinne death temporall and eternall hell purgatorie and all paine c. But what reasons hath Bristow against my saying First my assertion is saith he As though it were not of force to worke any whit more than it worketh in acte as to saue so much as one of them that shal not be saued I say it is of force to worke euen as much as God will but not to worke against the will of God But I speake contrarie to the expresse scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes and not for our sinnes only but also for the sinnes of the whole world 1. Ioh. 2. If you vnderstand the whole world for euery man in the world then it foloweth that God is reconciled for al men so no man shall be damned But S. Iohn meaneth by his general word al the elect of the world as when he saith The whole world is set on mischiefe he meaneth not euery person but all the reprobate 1. Ioh. 5. And that Christes death is not a propitiation of the sinnes of al the wicked of the world and reprobates it is certaine by that he refuseth to pray for the world that is for the reprobates of the world Iohn 17. But Bristowe vrgeth me with mine owne saying in an other contrarie to this Concerning the sufficiencie of Christes redemption there is nothing that can be spoken so magnifically but that the worthinesse thereof passeth and excelleth it This should haue come in among the contradictions if Bristowe had remembred it But I beseech you sir in commending the sufficiencie of Christes redemption doe I extend the force of his death beyond the limits of his will Are any more redeemed than Christ would The sixt I say that to remit sinnes is proper to his diuinitie That is saith Bristowe as though Christ doth not remit sinnes according to his humanitie I say Christ which is a person consisting of God and man doth remitte sinnes by absolute auctority but that is proper to his diuinity and not to his humanity as for the power which he hath giuen to his ministers to remit sinne is not absolute but to declare remission of sinnes in his name Neither did the people which glorified God for giuing such power to men Matth. 9. acknowledge the doctrine of the Church for the remission of sinnes by the ministery of man but praised God for giuing the gift of healing vnto Christ whom yet as young scholers they acknowledge not to be God but an holy Prophet sent of God And so the other Euangelists report their praising of God to haue beene for that they neuer sawe it so they had seene wonderfull things that day Mark 2. Luk. 5. The 7. he chargeth me to teach a pestilent doctrine of desperation Where I say there be sinnes for which the Church ought not to pray euen of men remaining in this life for which it is not lawfull to pray which by the mercy of God are not pardonable it is false that so long as men are in this worlde they may repent For which he quoteth Pur. 274 127. 128. 135. 283. After he asketh how many such sinnes there are and saith in one place I name two and after more and after concludeth that in some I say that it is vnlawful to pray for any wicked person of what sort so euer his wickednesse be so long as he continueth in his wickednesse yea and it is vnpossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickednesse This is a pestilent slander for I neuer accounted any sinne irremisible but onely the sinne against the holy Ghost for obstinate and willfull apostasie is the sinne against the holy Ghost whereof a fruite is finall contempt of all that preach Christ and of all meanes that Christ hath wrought to bring vs to repentance such was the sinne of Saul and of the obstinate Iewes for whome Samuel and Ieremie are forbidden to pray As for that I should say it is not lawfull to pray for any wicked person c. I neuer thought it but onely for those that sinne against the holy Ghost of whom Saint Iohn saith they sinne vnto death and I say not that any man should pray for that 1. Ioan. 5. Neuerthelesse Bristowe affirmeth that we are worse then the Nouatians when I say That some sinnes neither by the mercy of God are pardonable But where doe I say so he quoteth before Pur 128. And what be my wordes there Verily who so will turne the booke shal reade them thus For by the iustice of God all sinnes are mortall but by his mercy they are all pardonable except that sinne vnto death wherof Iohn speaketh 1. Ioh. 5. Thus am I worse thā a Nouatian for saying the sinne against the holy Ghost shall neuer be pardoned neither in this life nor in the world to come But perhaps Bristowe will cauill that euen that sinne is pardonably by Gods mercy if God would which is not contrary to that I saide For I speake of that which may be Gods eternall will standing according vnto which the Apostle saith it is impossible that they which so offende can be renewed by repentaunce Hebrewes 6. The heresie of the Nouatians as Bristowe affirmeth of the report of Aresius their Bishop was That they who after baptisme fall into that kinde of sinne which the holy scriptures call sinne vnto death ought not to be admitted to receiue the diuine mysteries but to be exhorted to repentaunce and to looke for hope of forgiuenesse not of the Priestes but of God who both can and hath authoritie to forgiue sinnes In which sentence a double error of the Nouatians is included first that they tooke that sinne vnto death wherof Saint Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5. to be falling through frailty in time of persecution euen as Bristowe doth the willfull prolapsion and Apostasie that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 6. Secondly that they thought the sinne vnto death might be remitted of God contrary to the manifest denunciation of our Sauiour Christe Matth. 12. As Bristowe doeth the sinne against the holy Ghoste which is all one and the same But that the Catholique Churche did then by her Priestes forgiue all sinnes without accepting the sinne against the holy Ghost which Bristowe affirmeth out of the confession of Acesius I maruell howe he proueth Yea he is so impudent to say that the Protestantes also doe admit all to their Caluines breade so the blasphemous dogge barketh against the holie Communion whereas we neuer receiue any whome we knowe to be excommunicated and much lesse would we receiue any apostata that is cleane fallen from Christianitie not of weakenesse or ignorance but of malicious contempt or any whome we might knowe to haue sinned that sinne vnto death and to haue blasphemed against the holie Ghost But nowe let vs see what miserable comfort Bristowe will minister against desperation in answering such places
at the Emperors charges for the encrease of Christian faith among them Bristowe asketh me what Emperor or what faith but Catholike or Popish That which I saide of the Syrian Testament was to shewe that the Churches in Chaldea haue preserued the scriptures which yet are not subiect to the Church of Rome with the Emperors profession I delt not but his purpose I suppose was to encrease Christian faith and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not encrease Popish faith seeing Papists are so vnwilling that the people should read the worde of God in the natiue language Fourthly that I say the fathers alledging the succession of Bishops against heretikes specially named the Church of Rome because those heretikes for the most part had ben somtimes of the Church of Rome as Valentinus Marciō Nouatus Against this Bristowe telleth me that Allen speaketh also of the Arrians Donatists and al heretikes But I spake of those fathers that alledged the succession of Bishops namely Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion that they were at Rome vnder Hyginus Pius and Anicetus and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession and yet taught his heresie priuily and was excommunicated For Nouatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome Eusebius is cleare Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus whereas Nouatus had beene of Carthage but from thence was also gone to Rome I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greeke writers to be deceiued as Bristowe saith and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Nouatus and the other called Nouatus in steade of Nauatus which name was then in vse But seeing the person of the heretike is certaine it is folly to striue for his name I haue shewed mine authour for Nouatus 〈◊〉 Rome and so for the rest wherefore I haue not bewraied any ignorance therein as Bristowe pretendeth The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is where I shewe wherein the communion of Saintes consisteth In that I say one can not merit for an other no not for him selfe but euery man hath his worthinesse of Christe As though saith Bristowe neither Christ could merite for any other no nor for him selfe because he had his worthinesse of God But I say that Christ because he was God had his worthinesse of him selfe and therefore did merite for vs. And see what secret blasphemie is contained in this comparison of Bristowe Where he would make a similitude of meriting betweene vs which please not God but onely through his mercy with Christe who satisfied the iustice of God But Bristowe chargeth me so to define the cōmunion of Saints that I allow no place for the praiers of the members aliue made for others that are aliue A vile slander when I speake of the grace and giftes of God which as euery one hath receiued of God so of charitie he is bound to imploy the same to the profite of his fellowe members here on earth But if we be bound of charitie to pray one for an other saith Bristowe whie are not these members in heauen as well Because there is not a lawe appointed for them that are in heauen and them that be in earth we knowe praier is commaunded vs we knowe not any praier commaunded them neither are we to trust to any such thing But the Scripture saith that Christes friendes doe reioice in heauen with his penitents in earth It saith so in deede of the Angels and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirites but of their knowledge and if their knowledge were certaine yet it followeth not that they pray for the conuersion of sinners and much lesse that the mutuall offices of loue whereby one member hath compassion with an other can by any meanes touch the state of the deade to receiue any benefite thereby But an other quarrell is where I make the communion of the whole body to be the participation of life from Christ the head If this be all saith Bristow then there is no communion For what communion were it betweene the members of your naturall body if they did onely receiue life from your head and could not vse the saide life to profite one an other c. This man hath great leasure to trifle without any matter Who so shall reade my wordes Pur. 199. which he quoteth shall finde me to say That the communion of the whole body is the participation of life and all other offices of life that euery member and the whole body hath of the head as S. Paule teacheth plainely Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life for one member to assist an other in that it may and as it ought I haue comprehended it but that Bristowe doth wilfully holde my saying and then play with it at his pleasure Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen that he will haue other workes waies of saluation besides the bloud of Christ because he groundeth all works and waies of saluation in the bloud of Christ. But I reporting his words truly by plain distribution do gather that Allen will haue other workes and waies of saluation beside the bloud of Christ except you will say that is no way nor worke of saluation of it selfe without these waies and works of men If the bloud of Christ of it selfe be one way and worke of saluation and there be other waies and workes though grounded in it then are there more waies and workes of saluation than the onely redemption of Christe which I vnderstand by the bloud of Christ so I haue done Allen no iniurie but he hath offered hainous iniurie to the bloud of Christe and so doe al they which mixed it with any to purchase Gods fauour who is reconciled by none other merite or satisfaction but only by the bloud of the crosse of his Sonne our Lorde Iesus Christe to whome be praise for euer more In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion Bristowe doth only shew that there is in my two bookes stuffe ynough to make an other booke as bigge as this to the discredit of my partie I trust this booke of his as bigge as it is hath wrought no discredite to the cause I maintaine because I haue shewed howe it is stuffed with lies slaunders falsifications and cauillations such stuffe he may haue great store in the diuell his maisters schoole to make a booke tenne times as bigge as this was but for so much as he hath not aunswered any one of mine arguments or refelled any one of mine aunsweres to Allen in any right order leauing the defence of him as he pretendeth to defend the Church I confesse he hath left matter sufficient for any man that will vndertake the confutation of my bookes which this his vnorderly and vnsufficient replie notwithstanding I protest to remaine still in their strength and
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
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
by Malachie was he expoundeth out of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse the praiers of the saintes Cap. 35. Also Cap. 34. expounding what is that pure sacrifice foreshewed by Malachie and taught by Christ he saith Oportet enim nos oblationem deo facere in omnibus gratos inueniri fabricatori deo in sententia pura fide sine hypocrisi in spe firma in dilectione feruenti primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturarum offerentes hanc oblationem Ecclesia solapuram offert fabricatori offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius For we must make this oblation to God and in all things be found thankefull to God our maker in a pure mynd and faith without hypocrisie in stedfast hope and feruent loue offering the first fruites of those creatures which are his and this pure oblation the Church a lone offereth to her maker offering to him of his owne creature with thanksgiuing Thus writteth Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Church which cannot stand with the Popish sacrifice of Christes naturall body and bloud And whatsoeuer Gregory Nyss. Chrysostome or Ambrose write of changing the bread consecrating of the things set forth working of Christes words hath none other meaning but of the spirituall changing consecrating and working of God in the worthy receiuers of this sacrament as in more proper places shall be shewed out of euery one of them The next argument to prooue that Christe spake to the bread is of the custom of the East Church in which the people answered Amen when the words of consecration were pronounced alowde which he proueth out of Ambrose The same appeareth in Augustine sermone ad insants which proueth that it was the custome of the Latine Church in those daies to pronounce the words openlv for Ambrose and Augustine were both of the West or Latine Church and therefore the fecret whispering of the Popish Church is prooued to be but new in comparison belike inuented since transubstantiation came to towne and therefore that custome prooueth nothing worth the answering howsoeuer Sander prefer it before the custome of the elder Church To the which I answer that Amen may be said as well to wordes of promise and more properly then to wordes of performance For Amen doth not only affirm a thing to be so but also wisheth that it may be so But now there is another ancient custome witnessed by Irenaeus out of Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. who reproouing Victor bishop of Rome for excōmenicating the Churches of Asia dissenting from him in the celebration of Easter affirmeth that Soter Anicetus Pius Higinus Telesphorus and Xystus vsed solemnely to sende the Eucharisty to those preists who came out of those quarters where Easter was kept otherwise then it was it Rome Ergo saith he the sacrament is a corporall reall thing which may be preserued caried sent vp and down and so at last receiued And so consequently the wordes in question are words of performance and not of promise Although the consequence is not sure yet the foundation of this whole argument is nought For Irenaeus sayeth not that the Sacrament was preserued carryed sent vp and downe but that it was sent solemnly vnto strangers not into forreine countries but to such as came to Rome neither doeth hee saye that it was sent vnto their lodginges or Innes but for any thing that he sayeth it was sent vnto them beeing present at the time of distribution and celebration of the supper for he sayeth before Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclcsiae societate aut venientes ab illis paribus non sunt suscepti Yet were they neuer for this repulsed from the societie of the Church or comming from those partes were not receiued And afterwarde hee sheweth that Anicetus did giue place vnto Polycarpus permitting him to minister the Communion as one whome he honoured So that no reseruation nor sending vp and downe is heereof prooued other then sending the communion by the Deacons about the Church as their custome was But Iustinus sayth expressely that it was sent vnto them which were absent by the Deacons which had no power to consecrate and therefore Caluine reprooueth that custome for an abuse But for as much as Iustinus maketh mention before of the collation of almes which was also blessed and that he affirmeth that the Deacous carried it is not vnlike but that this carriage might be of bread and wine which was then offered in greate quantitie to the reliefe of such poore as beeing letted by sicknesse or imprisonment coulde not be present at the holy assemblies Or if you will needes vnderstande that which was sent to be the sacrament although the Deacons might not consecrate yet might they declare the vertue and force of the consecration and the vse of the Sacrament vnto such as they did carie it from the congregation with which those that vpon necessarie cause were absent were present in spirite might communicate more tollerably then they which among the Papists when thei haue no let refuse to cōmunicate with the priest and after in sicknesse receiue their masse cake communicating with none at all Neuerthelesse it cannot be denyed but such carrying of the sacrament if it were vsed in the eldest Church was an abuse because it hath none allowance in the holy Scriptures of Christes institution but a commaundement to the contrarie for these wordes Take and eate bee wordes of commaunding therefore keeping and sending which are contrarie to these cannot be defended howsoeuer they might be excused Wherefore it is without reason that Caluine is charged with intollerable pride for finding fault with the primitiue Church and bringing no reason of his reprouing For Caluine opposeth the commaundement of Christ the end of the institution which he worthily calleth the trueth against any custome of any man how good soeuer he were Cyprian sayeth wee must not regarde what any man hath done before vs but what Christ which is before all hath done and commanded to be done lib. 2 Ep. 3. The custome of ministring with water was ancient and vsed in the primitiue Church by some as it should seeme by Cyprian otherwise godly men But he concludeth against it Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Neither must we followe the custome of man but the trueth of God It is therefore a fault to keepe the sacramentall bread and wine or to sende it about because Christ hath neither done nor commanded it to be done but the contrarie to be eaten and dronken This reason of Cyprian is Caluins reason of whose writinges Sander willeth all men to take heede and yet he sayeth they shall finde in them neither learning nor honestie If there be no learning in them there is no great danger of hurt by reading of them I marueile what that is which you Papistes call learning for if it be knowledge of sciences of tongues of auncient writinges of things past of
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
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
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
figuratiuely because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing vntil it be plainly vnderstanded This I denie for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing which the speaker meaneth although the hearer vnderstand it not at all Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely was easily vnderstood of all his hearers which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches But Sander replyeth that the Apostles were simple men Idiots and vnderstood not the scriptures therefore they could not vnderstand how the signe might be called by the name of the thing I answere although they were simple vnlearned men in deede and such as vnderstood not the scriptures in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office as was laid vpon them yet Sander doth them too much wrong to make them or any godly person of that time so ignorant in the scriptures that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament considering they were circumcised did celebrate the Passeouer euery yere the verie name wherof must needes teach them howe the signe may be called by the thing signified And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous foolish that Sander prateth of the true first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ This cupp is the newe Testament What verifying of contradictories what diuers soundings what true tokens what things present O great diuinitie of Popish doctors But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud if it be euident saith he it is quickly vnderstood Call women and children and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make Nay rather call Turkes Sarazens and aske the question if it must be euident to them vnto whome the mysterie is not reuealed The token is euident to them that are instructed not to such as neuer heard of it as belike where Sander hath to do women and children are But God be thanked women and children instructed in the Church of Christ can tell him howe euident a token it is of their spirituall feeding on the bodie and bloud of Christ. But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance as he termeth it Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen c. where as much is giuen as is signified by the wordes If this be true all cases reserued both episcopall and Papall are in case to bee forgiuen by euery priest of the lowest degree But here the Apologie which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance is charged to haue falsified the wordes of Christ saying they are meant whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe yet doeth it not falsifie them except Sander will saye that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification Howe Christes wordes are to be taken as Sander will not dispute in this place so neither will I stande here to discusse But this is a bolde determination of him that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall wordes of a Sacrament cannot be vnproper For the nature of the thing doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes If this doctorall determination be true then these are proper speaches The rocke is Christ the Lambe is the Passeouer the cuppe is the newe Testament baptisme is the lauer of regeneration And S. Augustines rule De doct Christ lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giue place to D. Sanders decree Si autem flagiâ—iis c. If the words of scripture seeme to coÌ„maunde any wicked nor vngodly acte or to forbid any profit or well doing it is a figure Except ye shall eate saith he the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act Therfore it is a figure commanding vs to communicate with the Lordes passion and profitable to kepe in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Againe Locut de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt noÌ„ dixit tres dies significaÌ„t Et multuÌ„ haec locutio notanda est vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur Inde est quod ait Apostolus Petra autem erat Christus non ait Petra significabat Christum Three basketes are three daies he said not they signifie three daies And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie Hereof it is that the Apostle saieth And the rocke was Christ hee saith not the Rocke did signifie Christ. Finally where Sander saieth it is against the nature of a Sacrament not to signifie plainly I agree with him affirming that the bread and wine which is eaten and dronken doe plainly signifie that we are fed spiritually with the very body and bloud of Christ vnto the full assurance of our perseuerance continuance in the fauour of God euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life and the wordes in this Sacrament be as plaine as in the other but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion CAP. XII Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. Sander to dispute for his life would take the conclusion thus it is a signe of his body therfore it is his bodie in deed So that Sander to dispute for his life would ouerthrow the nature of opposites which cannot stande both together at one time and in one respect But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God hee will haue the argument tryed by the word of God And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ which he saith were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth which they signified because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine and the grace of saluation were not yesterday and to day the same for euermore the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde Hebr. 13. Apocalipse 13. Secondly hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe speaking to the leprous man to him that had the palsie to the disciples of Iohn baptist to the dumme man to proue that when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh When Sander shal dispute for his life he must chuse him an easye aduersary for els he will soone loose
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
to coâ—er the saide flesh because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence Beware Sander what you say lest you proue a Sacramentarie Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament another manner of presence then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them Yea it was a glorious and mysticall presence If you coulde holde you there wee shoulde soone bee agreed The eight is to confesse the reall presence and to denye adoration let them answere that defende such presence The ninth howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice siâ—h it is his bodye who is the propitiation for the world Nay howe grosse is this consequence seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice and by that one oblation found eternall redemption Heb. 9. 10. The â—enth grosse imagination is of him who teacheth that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered be wordes of promise and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him which teacheth a gift to be made deliuered and receiued when he which receiueth it is neuer the better for it Finally whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament it is grosse falshood and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures the sense of which and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode is the worde of God CAP. XXVI What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christs supper The Apologie toucheth briefely that the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greeke of some doth expressely forbidde vs that wee shoulde not basely occupie ouâ— mindes about the breade and wine set before vs Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large and gathereth great matters out of them Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa c. Againe here also in the holy table let vs not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vs but lifting vp our minde let vs vnderstand by faith That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be set on that holy table to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes and that we truely taking his owne preciouâ— bodie and bloud doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause wee taâ—e not much but litle that we may knowe we take not to fill vs but for holines Out of these wordes ten argumentes he hath to prooue or to helpe to prooue the reall presence of Christes body vnder the formes of bread and wine The first is that bread and wine are set on the table not to be basely considered ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore and a forlorne helpe and a miserable argument For the contrary doth followe the bread must not be basely considered ergo it is breade although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme The second argument is that seeing the wordes of consecration be past in respect of which the Councell sayeth the breade and wine must not be basely considered the wordes did not onely make them a Sacrament as in baptisme c. but also did worke some reall thing vnder the formes of bread and wine which remaineth still as long as the saide formes and signes remaine Nay rather the Councell signifieth that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof is not perfite before the vse and receite of it whereof it speaketh soone after and therefore is not to be basely considered as common breade and wine but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption as for the formes and signes and colours of breade and wine the Councell speaketh not one worde of them but of bread and the cuppe which be substances and not accidental formes The thirde We must vnderstand saith hee not by seeing but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith In deede that is the onely waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body bloud in the Sacrament The fourth We must beleeue that to be the Lambe of God which is on the holy table whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth but of that which is breade and wine and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen by faith Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ. The fifth The Lambe is there so that he is put laide and situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of another thing But if a man should aske you howe that may bee I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it and yet your wordes import a fimilitude Therefore seeing it is without example your position is after an imagined manner Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vnto vs by his holye mysteries as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme not that one thing is situated as another thing which is no where neither any such thing can bee shewed and therefore is nothing but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne The sixt The Lambe is so truely made present that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes vnbloudily Where haue you the worde outwardly or what argument haue you of an outwarde oblation except you thinke Priestes cannot offer but outwardly Naye rather in that the Councel sayth the Lamb is offered vnbloudily it signifieth that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes for without shedding of bloud there is no sacrifice for sinnes Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onely insacrificable sacrifice of Christe is celebrated in that holy action The seuenth After the sacrifice made the people doe partake with the altar which could not bee except a permanent substance were made by consecration The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ in the mysticall tokens of our redemption which ouerthroweth priuate Masse Communion in one kinde and transubstantiation and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite before it be receiued The eight Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ is to take it really and bodily The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking but of taking by faith when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ. The ninth taking of that which standeth before vs on the table is by the instrument of our bodies therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell A shamelesse collection of a false argument For that which standeth on the table the Councell calleth breade and the cuppe which is taken and deliuered externally and by corporall instruments the rest must be vnderstoode by
might be◠conuerted yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction at which neuer a Iewe was present And where as Sander argueth that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament hee sheweth double follye for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud and secondly when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade to bee redde of all men howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion before infidels that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous as Sander imagineth Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet in other words of the same homilie as you haue seene hee speaketh of the presence of Christ euen in his sacraments The third Booke In the Preface of the third Booke he promiseth to proue First that Christ in the sixt of S. Iohn spake of the gifte he made afterwarde in his parting banket Secondly that the real presēce of his flesh and bloud is euidently prooued by such words of promise as he there vttered Afterwarde he excuseth himselfe that he is driuen to handle deepe obscure matters being a poore scholler of Oxford and yet inferior to 200 that were in the late Tridētine councel So that if any Parliament man brought vp in hawking and hunting think he writeth too profound ly for his vnderstanding he must thinke that he is lesse able to be a iudge of this whole controuersie and of all questions in religion As though it were necessarie for euerie member of the Parliament that shall entreate of cases of religion to be trained vp in schoole points of Popish diuinitie which the farther they be from the vnderstāding of that cōmō people y◠further they are from faith Christiā religiō which ought to be cōmonly know◠euē to the simplest women and children And albeit that euerie parliament man is not able of himselfe to iudge of al controuersies of religion yet they altogether by the instruction of so many godly learned men as are among them may decree what lawes are necessarie to bee made for the aduancement of Gods glorie in religion as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet tranquillitie To conclude his foolish preface hath neuer done craking of hard and difficult matters as though he were a man of such ripe iudgement in them that whatsoeuer he did write were the Oracles of Apollo where as in deede euerie meane wise man shall easily perceiue that when he would seeme to winde himself out of a difficult and intricate matter hee sheweth more boldnesse in aduouching then soundnes in his approuing CAP. I. The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn is declared First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three wayes by faith and spirit onely without the Sacrament in the Sacrament of the Altar onely without faith and grace or in both together Of the laste kind of receiuing he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vpon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not which the sonne of man will giue them This gift saith hee is plainelie meant of his last supper and so saith Theophilact a late writer But because they could not come to the working of this gift without faith vpon him therefore hee teacheth for a preparation that he is the breade of life c After which preparation made he returneth saith he to expounde his owne gifte shewing most expressely that which he will giue in his last supper And the breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come when Christ spake vnto his disciples but Christ saieth his peculiar gifte was to come This onely reason he vseth in this Chapter Wherein you must note first that heere of a falsifying minde hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them For his wordes are these And the breade that I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde In which wordes the gifte is manifestly referred vnto his passion and not vnto his supper Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe was from the beginning of the worlde yet that singular act by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vnto eternall life and was giuen for meate was not then performed but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion For all benefites of Christe haue like streames flowed alwayes from the bloud of his crosse and our redemption and reconciliation thereby If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence leaueth out these words which I will giue which it is certaine by the Greeke text of saint Iohn that our sauiour Christ did speake hee cannot so escape for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion brought vnto it although it want the wordes yet may well reteine the sense But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes which he knoweth both to haue beene vsed by Christ and which giue a cleere and cleane contrarie sense to that whiche hee affirmeth and that in so weightie a matter as is the passion of Christe wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde CAP. II. It is prooued by circumstances and by the conference of holie Scriptures that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one nor altogether prooue that Christ speaketh of his supper otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter The first circumstance is the time which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth before his supper instituted to argue that he speaketh of his supper is a vaine argument both because the time is vncertaine and also because the time of Easter if it were certaine hath better relation to his passion then to his supper The 2. circumstance is the myracle made in breade A ridiculous matter as though it were not made also in flesh But in deede the
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
they ministred the communioÌ„ to infants it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance as all error doth but it sheweth not that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise then the other a seale or assurance of iustification wtout any dreame of transubstantiatioÌ„ That Sand would excuse their custom to haue bin vsed more for a security then for necessitie is to no purpose It is manifest that they thought erroniously that the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both as Aug. Innocent B. of Rome hath defined denying eternall life to infants that dyed without the communion and baptisme as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements CAP. XIIII That S. Augustine did not teach thâ—se words Except ye eaâ— the flesh c To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of god theÌ„ by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually which Aug. doth teach not the carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend S. Aug. de doct Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse affirmeth that this speech of Christ Except yee eat that flesh c containeth a figure And what the meaning of this figure is August telleth vs It is a figure saith he commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and that we should sweetely and profitably remeÌ„ber that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs. But Sander replyeth first against the Lutherans that August calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper And which of the Lutherans I pray you denyed that it appertaineth to the last supper although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper Secondly he fathereth vpon the Zwinglians an vntruth that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper to prooue the necessitie of both kinds which is a fable for they graunt none otherwise then I haue often shewed yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of that place because Christ giueth vs a perfect nourishmeÌ„t of meat and drinke or as Iustine saith of dâ—ie and moyst nourishment vnto which spirituall trueth the externall seale must be made consormable But nowe will Sander teach vs to vnderstande what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach which is al one as if he would teach vs to go to supper as it is in the Greeke prouerbe First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach to be vsed vnproperly but is measured by faith and good manners Whereas Augustine telleth vs that if in any sentence of the scripture the words sound against faith good manners the words must not be taken in their proper sense but they are a figure and signifie some other thing then the words in their proper taking do sound as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place beside his plaine wordes do declare This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head which he doeth thus interprete Vt intelligas carbones ignis esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus quibus superbia sanatur eius qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis a quo eius miseriae subvenitur That thou mâ—ist vnderstand coales of fire to be the burning groanings of repentance by which his pride is healed which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man by whome his miserie is helped Beholde euen as coales of fire in this text are not taken in their proper sense for a bodily substance of woodde incensed so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence taken in the proper sense for receiuing at our mouth chawing and swallowing But as Augustine interpreteth for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite c. either in the Sacrament or without it And it is a foolish cauil of Sander to say that charitie is not broken when we eate Christ whole vnder the forme of breade without hurting of him c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium an heynous offence to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating that is corporally Yea faith Sander to eate it in peeces as it is solde in tho shambles As though to eate an whole man after that maner were not more monstrous then to eate a piece of him But Sander to shewe his synceritie rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see Durum illis visum est c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue life euerlasting They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body and to giue them This is an hard talk say they They were harde not the talke For if they were not hard but gentle they would say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle not hard they wold tati with him shal learn of him that thing which after their departure those learned who taried For when the twelue had taried with him the other beeing departed they as who were sory for the others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed But Christ instructed them and saied it is the spirite that quickneth the flesh profiteth not the wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand that which I haue spokeÌ„spiritually Ye shal not eate this body which you see wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde who will crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall make you liue And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge First against the Lutherans that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament I answere that Augustine in other places and namely in his purposed commentary of that place vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament but otherwise also which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes is to be meant of the manner of eating in the natural vnderstanding of câ—râ—all men by cutting tearing chawing c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole sound and quicke to be eaten vnder the forme of breade I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which
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
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
handes c this is the Passeouer that is a Sacrament of the Passeouer You see that the Pronowne being the singular number may demonstrate a singular substance but with all actions belonging to it CAP. VI. That the Pronowne This pointeth finallie to the body bâ—â—â—d and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certeine kinde of foode He taketh for proued that which is proued to be vntrue that the Pronowne This pointeth not the bread wine and thereof concludeth that it pointeth onely the bodie and bloud but the first is false ergo the later But if you be so hastie saieth Sander that you will not tarie the speaking of foure wordes to know what particular and finall substance the Pronown This doth point vnto then this doeth meane this eatable thing Sir our haste is not so great but we can stay a much longer time to knowe our masters meaning But seeing you beare vs in hande that one substance is made of another by these wordes spoken which aske a time in speaking and you your selues determine at what instant the change is soudenly made al at once and would proue the same by the Pronowne This and euery other of the wordes you must giue vs leaue to consider euery moment of time in which they are spoken For then euery worde is true when the things whereof the wordes are signes agree with the worde in that time in which they are vttered for this proposition euery man is dead cannot be true because euery man shall die before euery man be dead And to that you saye This meaneth this eatable thing I affirme you are neuer the neere for if there bee not bread what thing is there eatable before it be the bodyâ— and the bodie it is not before the wordes are all vttered If by an eatable thing you meane Duns his indiuiduum vagum then you renounce your former position so often aduouched that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certaine substance and so you are rapped on the scoâ—se on both sides and with your owne staues CAP. VII The naming of the chaliâ—e prooueth not the rest of Christes wordes to be figuratiue He were a madde man that would reason so that because one word is figuratiue all the rest must be figuratiue but this is a good argument one word is figuratiue ergo more may be and figuratiue speeches are net inconuenient to be vsed in the institutioÌ„ of a Sacrament Therefore Sander might haue spared his seuen reasons which he bringeth to prooue that the naming of the chalis prooueth not all the rest of the wordes to be figuratiue But the naming of the chalis the new Testament in his bloud doth inuincibly prooue al the other speeches to be figuratiue For the same sense is of these wordes This is my bloud and of these This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud but the sense of these latter words is figuratiue not only in respect of the word chalis but of the new Testament in his bloud ergo the sense of the former wordes is figuratiue And whereas Sander saieth the Apostles could not coniecture that est was put for significat which fewe but great doctors can discerne token of thinges to be somtime called by the names of thinges themselues I say he doth the Apostles wrong who beeing brought vp in the daiely exercise of the Sacramentes of the lawe could not be ignorant that the Lambe was called the Passeouer whereof it was a token and circumcision the couenant of God whereof it was a seale and so of many other but these two were their principall Sacramentes vnto which with vs baptisme and the Lordes supper doth answere CAP. VIII That the wordes of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper Why these wordes of our sauiour This is my body be not like other of his sayings in which he is said to be the dore the way the true vine Iohn Bapt. to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter which is specially intituled against Master Nowels chalenge and by him throughly confuted The vniuersall consent that he boasteth of in discerning of figuratiue speeches can neuer be prooued to haue receiued the wordes of Christ for proper Two reasons yet he alleageth why none of those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like the wordes of the supper One for that they name two seuerall natures as Iohn baptist and Elias That is false for not naming Iohn Baptist Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is Helias The other they speake not of any certeine thing or else they point not to it as to a thing present This is likwise false for Helias was a certeine thing and hee that was pointed vnto by the Pronâ—une This was present Last of all where he chalengeth vs to shewe where that Proposition is figuratiue which first instituteth and maketh any thing I haue shewed before that the propositions which God vseth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal are figuratiue For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh he saieth to Abraham this is my couenant Gen. 17. And of the Lambe to bee slaine and vsed as he appointeth he saith you shall eate it in haste for it is the Passeouer of the Lorde These are words of institution yet are they figuratiue for circumcision was not the couenant nor the Lambe the Passeouer but figuratiuely seales signes and tokens of them CAP. IX It is shewed by 27 circumstances of Christes supper that hee made his reall flesh and bloud present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper The first circumstance of Christs last supper is to consider who made it Howe necessarie the consideration of the circumstances of euery place of Scripture is for the true vnderstanding thereof euerie wise man will acknowledge but no circumstance alone nor all the circumstances together do prooue these wordes of Christ to be proper and not figuratiue As first we acknowledge the maker of the supper to be almighty to do whatsoeuer it pleased him but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh promiseth his flesh and giueth his flesh all which we constantly beleeue yet it followeth not that he purposed to giue his flesh in the Sacrament after his incarnation otherwise then he gaue it to the Patriaâ—kes before his incarnation Acknowledging also the prouidence wisdome trueth and goodnesse of the speaker we affirme that he speaketh heere most wisely prouidently truely and well but yet figuratiuely without that he doth blind his spouse with figuratiue wordes as Sander saith which he doth no more then God blinded his spowse the Church of Israel with figuratiue wordes when he spake figuratiuely in the institution of the Sacramentes of circumcision and of the Paschall lambe The second circumstance may be to consider the time when the supper was made The
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needes be reserred to corpus and cannot be referred to figura corporis And heere hee obtesteth that he may be instructed wherein he doth misconstrue the wordes I haue already satisfied his requeste and further I say he doth without all Grammar Rhetorike Logike Philosophie and Diuinitie referre hoc to corpus which is to bee referred to that thing which hee had in his hande which by their owne Popishe diuinitie could bee nothing but breade before hee had spoken out the wordes of consecration As for him that will lay the figure in the Verbe 〈◊〉 to take it for significat Sander counteth him an ignorant man because it must bee resolued by est significant and then the reason of signifying shall be founde in the nowne bodie rather then in the verbe Is for which cause Occolampadius admitted either the one or the other that is est for significat or copus for signum corporis In deede the matter is not great for the sense but when you call vs to construing the words by Grammar But taking the proposition thus Hoc est significans corpus meum I saye the reason of signifying consisteth not in the worde Bodie but in the subiect of the proposition which is the signe of the bodie although significans followe the Verbe est For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread the passion signified pertayneth to the bodie Where Sander challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendome to finde another construction I appeale to all the Grammarians in the worlde whether these wordes Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur may not be construed grammatically as wel as these other examples out of Genesis Exodus and a thousand more of like that might be added The 19. circumstance of the Verbe facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice The Verbe facere which signifieth most generally making and doing he will haue now to signifie offring sacrifice because that is the most excellent deede that can bee made which is a madde reason if Christ which doth alwayes the best thinges shoulde be saide to offer sacrifice so often as he saide facere For euerie thing that he did was the best in all respects that he did it But to prooue that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice he quoteth two places of Scripture but reherseth neither of both for shame the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites ego faciam bouem alterum Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice but to prepare or dresse or make ready an oxe or at the least is taken for interficere to kill an oxe which afterwarde is laide on the woâ—de and offered by inuocation The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doues faciet vnum pro peccato alterum in holocauslum he shall prepare the one for a sinne offering and the other to be a burnt offering where facere signifieth as before to make readie by killing drawing washing and dressing as the Lawe prescribed The same Hebrewe verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche is vsed in both places beeing spoken of the Calfe that Abraham made readie for his guestes the olde interpreter turneth by the verbe coquo which signifieth to dresse as a cooke dresseth Genesis 18. Wherefore we haue not yet founde facere in the scripture for sacrificare to offer sacrifice But Sander saying it skâ—leth not whether it be ioyned with another worde in the accusatiue or ablatiue case or stande alone doth insinuate that although in scripture it cannot bee prooued to haue that signification yet in some other writer it is vsed for sacrificare ioyned with a nowne of the ablatiue case namely in Virgil Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse venito where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice but vnderstand oblationen or rem diâ—â—nam or some such like worde But in our texte the circumstance of deedes and words saith he do make it so to signifie First because the 14. day at euening hee began the blessed sacrifice of his passion Secondly hee hath offered the olde Paschal Lambe the chiefe sacrifice of the Lawe These two circumstances shew it was time to go about his only sacrifice on the crosse they proue not that he offered another sacrifice at the table Thirdly hetoke breade and wine into his handes part of the sacrifice of Melchisedek I answere the scripture telleth vs not of any such sacrifice of Melchisedek Fourthly he blessed and gaue thankes wherein he consecrateth his owne bodie the onely sacrifice of mankinde I answere his owne bodie had no neede of consecration hee consecrated breade to bee a sacrament of his bodie which was not the onely sacrifice for mankind which was but once and no more offered or to be offered Not that he should oftentimes offer vp himselfe saith the Apostle Heb. 9. ver 25. wherefore his commaundement hoc facite doe this is not to make a sacrifice of Christs bodie which hee made not But Cyptian saith Sander taketh the verbe facere so lib. 2. Ep. 3. Iesus Christus c. Iesus Christ our Lord and God himself is the hiest priest of God the father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the father Et hoc fieri 〈◊〉 sui commemorationem praecepit and hath commaunded this thing to be done in his remembrance That fieri signifieth heere not offerri but generally hath relation to all that Christ did not onely the whole argument of the Epistle which was against ministring with water onely but also the verie wordes following which Sander hath fraudulently cut off declare sufficiently vtique ille saccrdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur c Verily that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ which imitateth that which Christ hath done and then he offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ himselfe to haue offered Nay that Cyprian meaneth not that Christ in his supper did offer his owne bodie in sacrifice to his father for redemption of he worlde but onely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and commaunded the same to bee kept in remembrance of his passion Cyprian himselfe testifieth in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the passion of our Lorde wee ought to doe nothing but that which hee himselfe did Note heere the sacrifice which Cyprian offered was the passion of Christ as well as the bodie of Christ but it was not the passion of Christ properly therefore it was not the bodie of Christ properly I might alleage other places out of that Epistle to refell the impudencie of Sander
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
all out ouer it The verbe is in the words of Christ The bread which I will giue is my flesh although it respect the naturall flesh of Christ yet it prooueth not that the verbe is in the supper must be referred to the sonne more then the same verbe in Saint Paul the Rocke was Christ yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of wordes I will reason with him in his owne sense and ouerthrowe him in his owne conference I say not saith Sander that the bread shal be but the bread is my flesh If the bread is his flesh then his flesh is the bread and if the worde bread signifie an eatable thing as we haue bene often told then the flesh of Christ is an eatable thing when he so saith and consequently the flesh of Christ which he said he would giue for the life of the world might be eaten before the institution of the Sacrament The word coÌ„municating is the next matter of conference which being vsed of S. Paul doeth interprete the verbe Is to signifie a substantiall and not an accidentall being for communicating doeth shewe that all thing is common betweene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction commeth betweene these two but a barâ— signe of bread can make no such communicating because it is cleane of another kinde c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger he disputeth against that often times which wee vtterly denie For we neuer saide that naturall bread or a bare signe can make vs to haue communion with Christ but the verie bodie bloud of Christ yet not corporally but spiritually ioyned vnto vs of which communicating the bread and wine are effectuall seales sacraments As for Sanders assertion of communicating to signifie all thing common betwene Christ and vs not only without diuision but euen with out distinction is horrible heresie and detestable blasphemie Saint Iohn Ep. 1. Cap. 1. vseth the same worde often saying that wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating with God the father and his sonne Iesus Christ haue wee then all thing common with God the father so that ther is no distinction betweene vs and him O intollerable blasphemie The same Apostle saith wee haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating one with another by which he not only sheweth that the worde of communicating signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth but also teacheth that our communicating with Christ and with the members of Christ is spirituall whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 10. We being manie are one bodie c. And last of all that wee haue this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or communicating by other meanes then by receiuing the Sacrament That wee haue seene and heard saieth Saint Iohn wee preach vnto you that you also may haue communicating with vs that our communicating may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ. Againe if we walke in the light as he is light we haue communicating one with another and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne doeth purge vs from all sinne The last wordes of conference are bodie and bloud for which he heapeth vp so many texts as they are named in and more then either they are named meant in to proue that bodie and bloud stand not for signe or figure of bodie and bloud and in the ende concludeth that because these wordes are taken properly therefore to defend the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue is ignorance in Grammar and Logike blindnesse in diuinitie malice inexcusable in the day of iudgement But so long as it is but Sanders sophisticall conclusion it is little to be regarded what Logike diuinitie or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus let all the Logicians diuines and men of good conscience consider vntill Christ come and iudge all things The worde bodie in this saying This is my bodie is not figuratiue therefore the whole saying is not figuratiue This signifieth a generall thing and not that thing in his hand Is declareth that to be presently which is not vntill all the wordes be said bodie is taken properly Therefore the sense of this whole saying vttered together cannot be figuratiue But nowe we shall see conference of other places of scripture It is euident he saith that Iohn is not Elias and vseth many arguments to proue it yet will he admitte no arguments out of the present words This is my bodie to prooue that the saying is figuratiue as well as This is Elias And yet there is more oddes betweene the bodie of Christ and naturall bread then hee saith is manifest betweene Iohn and Elias Secondly The rocke was Christ must needes be figuratiue because it speaketh of two diuerse natures as though bread and the body of Christ were not two diuerse natures But there is no conuersion of any rocke into Christ for Christ did neither say of the rocke This is my body nor coÌ„mand vs so to say Seeing the holy ghost saieth the rocke was Christ who doubteth but that it was so by the word of Christ although not expressed by Moses And seing the Apostle speaketh so in the time past who will denie but that Moses or any man by the authority of Gods wordes at such time as the Israelites did drinke of it might haue said of the rocke This is Christ The other places which proue the absence of Christ in his humane nature froÌ„ the world as the poore ye shall haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwaies He is risen he is ascended into heauen he sitteth at the right hand of God c. Sander saith they denie not his inuisible presence in the Sacrament nether is any thing impossible to God and Christ sitting in heauen is almighty c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles that they shal see him no more after his ascension saying I goe to my father and you shal see mee no more Iohn 16. ver 10. but also he telleth them plainely and without any parable as they confesse that he leaueth the world and goeth to his father Io. 16. ver 20. whereas if he had saied I departe out of the worlde when he onely departed out of sight and purposed still to be present inuisibly he had not spoken plainely but very darkely Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd lib. 3. saith it is a great miracle that he which sitteth with his father in heauen at the same instant is touched with the handes of all men and deliuereth him selfe to those that will touch and embrace him It is manifest he speaketh of the heauenly mystery figuratiuely For immediatly before he saith when thou seest turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubâ—fieri c. the people standing about to be dipped and made redde with that precious bloud doest thou thinke thou art still among mortall men and standest vpon the earth Art thou not rather immediatly remoued into the heauens Doest thou not casting away all cogitation
bread of euer lasting life which holdeth vp the substance of our soule I like this saying of Ambrose or whosoeuer writ that booke very well The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall body of Christ which the Papistes affirme to be a kind of bread that goeth into the body Seuenthly Gregory of Nyssa saieth in vita Mosis panis est c. It is bread prouided for vs without seede without plowing without any other worke of man But he saith immediatly before that it is receiued with a pure and cleane mind and is an heauenly meate therefore a spirituall food spiritually to be receiued and not bodily Eightly S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Ioâ—n saith when would flesh vnderstand this thing thâ—â— he called bread flesh In deed the spirituall manner of nourishing is not possible to be vnderstood of the flesh but the fleshly transubstantiation may be vnderstood of euery fleshly man Ninethly Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthily nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis the nourisher of our spirituall substance He meaneth if it bee worthily receiued otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth vnworthily Lastly Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saieth of the bread which Christ gaue to Iudas Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat To whome he himselfe gaue bread which bread was to be betrayed A great miracle if a Poet speake specially But nowe directy against transubstantiation speake many doctors Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat by that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast foorth into the draught Likewise the matter of the bread profiteth not c. Theodoret Diâ—l 1. saith Simbola c. The symboles or tokens which are seene he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to the nature Likewise Dialog 2. he saith Manent in pâ—iori substantia the bread and wine after sanctification abide in their former substance Gelasius a bishop of Rome cont Eutich writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament Et tamen esse non definit substantia natura panis vini The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine These sayings with diuerse other are direct against transubstantiation and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers to proue it of which not one of them hath a reasonable colour when it is examined CAP. XII The presence of the bodie bloud of Christin his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old testament In deede of scriptures he bringeth ether vaine allegories fantastical figures of his own brain or els shamefully racketh the sentences of the old testament to make them prophecies of transubstantiation which were not once spoken of the Sacrament And first he slandereth S. Paul to haue said that to the Iewes al things chanced in figures where he saith of such things as came to passe in the wildernes all these things happened to them as figures or examples are written for our instruction And although Saint Paul had so saide as hee reporteth yet it followeth not that he may drawe their figures whither he will He beginneth with the figure of Abel whom he maketh the first shepeheard Priest Martyr and perpetuall Virgine in all which he would haue him to be a figure of Christ. Although that hee was the first shepeheard it is not like for it is not to bee thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of Cattell before Abel tooke it in hand no more then it is like that he occupied no tillage before Cainefell vnto it But that he calleth Abel the first Prieste it is vtterly false For Adam was the first Prieste and receaued or God the lawe of sacrificing which hee taught vnto his sonnes except Sander thinke that Adam liued so many yeares without exercise of religion vntill Abel and Caine were made Priestes For Caine is named to haue offered sacrifice as soone as Abel Whereby it is probable that neither of them both was Priest but Adam the heade of the familie to whom they brought their seuerall oblations vnto that place which was called the presence of the Lorde from whence Caine was bannished after his murther committed Concerning Abels virginitie I will not contend although if I should followe the Iewish traditions as Sander doth in his allegoricall comparison in diuerse pointes I must say he was a married man hauing to wife his sister Delbora But to the comparison Sander saith that Abell first offered himselfe vnder the shape of other things and after went forth to be offered in his owne person being traiterously slaine This is nothing else but a drousie dreame of Sanders sleepâ—e heade The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christes death and not of his last supper Neither did he offer himselfe vnder the shape of his satte lambes but he offered his lambes in signe that God by the mediation of Christs death should accept him Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person when he was murthered as Christe did neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice whose bloud cried vengeance whereas the bloud of Christs sacrifice crieth mercie Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a grosse abusing of the Scriptures to faigne such foolish figures which haue no grounde in the worde of God but are such as euerie one will inuent out of his own imagination Euen as that iest of Sander that Caine did beare a figure of the English communion in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered when much rather I might say that Cain did beare a figure of the murdering church of Rome which hath slain so many Abels because her sacrifice of the fruits of the erth is no better accepted But what should I trifle after so vaine a ma ner The second figure is of Melchizedek which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers Against all which I oppose the credit of the Apostle to the Hebrewes who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks priesthood might be referred to Christ maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberalitie not of priestly dutie And yet it is a vaine thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks bread wine when they in their sacrifice wil acknowledg to remain neither bread nor wine But of al that euer I heard it is a most impudent comparison that Sander maketh of Melchizedek consecrating AbrahaÌ„ by blessing of him that was really present as it were in his haÌ„ds And Christ consecrating his owne bodie bloud present in his hands at the time of his blessing consecrating and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one denying
be caried in his owne handes and at length concludeth that Christ ipse se portabat quodammodo he caried himselfe after a certeine manner when he said This is my body The meaning of Augustine is when he caried the Sacrament of his body To this Sander ioyneth the ioy that Dauid had by the fruit of corne and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise he preferreth the light of Gods countenance before all temporall benefites but it is ynough for Sander that he nameth corne and wine Likewise the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that comforteth the hart of the spiritual man Ps. 103. the meat that God giueth to them that feare him these if wee beleeue Sander were prophecies of the Sacrament in which is neither bread nor wine But of all other mee thinke Sander should haue held his peace of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunke Ps. 22. seing he wil not suffer ChristiaÌ„s so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice much lesse to be made drunk with it Peraduenture it is because the Papistes will keepe true Christians sober that they will not suffer them to drinke of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk O shameles hypocrites My soule yrketh to rehearse these grosse mockeries of Gods worde Elias is fedde from the ayer with breade and flesh and walketh 40. dayes in the inwarde strength of a peece of bread Yet in the first there was bread and flesh which would make well for the Lutherans in the other there was bread and water which would serue the turne of the Aquarians if these places were figures of the Sacrament The wheaten corne Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corne of the Church shall no more be giuen to her enimies that vine wherin she hath labored shall no more be drunke of strange children the corne of the elect and the wine that ingendreth virgins as the vulgar text translateth Zachary Cap. 9. If they perteine to the Sacrament doe rather fight against transubstantiation then for it As for the bread in Ieremie 11. wherein the wodde is fastened is a palpable error of the translator as I haue shewed before The cleane Sacrifice of Malachie is to be offered of euery one of the faithfull and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse The bread of Angels was Manna Psa. 77. which spiritually was the body of Christ as the Sacramental bread is to vs. Last of all Salomon saith and repeteth often No other thing to be good vnder the sunne besides eating drinking with gladnes and mirth where vnto Sander addeth that the best thing vnder the sunne may be eaten and drunken which Salomon neither said nor meant but that amongst the troubles and vanities of the world nothing was better for a man then quietly to enioy those things which God giueth and to lead his life peaceably iustly Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Sander concludeth that the custom of the scripture in commending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body bloud of Christ should be giuen vnder their forms I say it may more probably be gathered to shew that bread wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding with the body bloud of Christ. For it is a strange maner of coÌ„mending to praise the substance for the only bare shewes accidents therof Although the scripture in most of these places cited intendeth in deede neither the one conclusioÌ„ nor the other CAP. XIII These words of Christes supper Hoc facite do not onely signifie do this but much rather Make this thing wherof it followeth that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made Although Hoc facite might signifie nothing but make this thing yet it would not followe that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made but rather a SacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud which are two seuerall thinges which if he had commanded to be made he would haue said Haec facite make these things not Hoc facite make this thing But when Sander hath prated his fil of agâ—râ— facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the verbs facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to do which he cannot denie therefore will haue the verbe to fignifie in this place both to doe to make which is most absurd But S. Paul putteth the matteâ— out of question rehearsing the wordes of Christ perteining to the cup saith This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Hoc facite doe this thing as often as ye shall drink for the remembrance of me And telling vs what they should do he addeth a reason of that saying For as often as ye eat this bread drink this cup you shewe the Lords death vntil he come Behold what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him In eating drinking of this bread cup to preach the Lords death Sander will reply that This is general to all the Church but Christ saying Hoc facite speaketh onely to his Apostles and in them to all priestes I aunswere Christ speaketh to his whole Church neither can it be proued that the aposâ—lâ—s only were present And yet it followeth not that euery priuate man hath authoritie to minister the communion seeing God hath chosen special persons for the administration of all publike actions in his Church As for the saying of Dauid memoriam fecit c. He hath made a remembrance is to no purpose for although he spake of the sacrament as he doth not yet there is great difference betweene making the bodie of Christ and making a remembrance of his meruailous workes But Sander will faine the consent of the old fathers to proue that Christes bodie is made I will not denie but the fathers sometime vse so to speake when they vnderstande the sacrament signe and figure of Christs bodie and not as Sander doth his reall bodie to be made of breade yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite to be of a making as well as of a doing First hee alleageth the Liturgies of Iames Clemens Basil and Chrysostome although none of them is his whose name it beareth yet are they of some antiquitie and what say they Foâ—sooth there is a prayer in them that God would send his holy spirite vpon them and the holy giftes which may sanctifie and make this bread the bodie of Christ. Heere breade is made the bodie of Christ. Very good but by whom by the priest or by the holy ghost If by the holy ghost then it is not by vertue of these words Hoc facite which were not spokeÌ„ to the holy ghost but to men I omit that this prayer in the old Liturgies is vsed after the words of consecration rehearsed by which is giuen vs to vnderstand that the bread is made the bodie of Christ by the holy ghost in the faithfull that receiue the bread and not as it lyeth on the table The like
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
〈…〉 oud of Christ and yet no necessitie of reall presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else but 〈…〉 ho is set foorth and the greatnes of the thinges sette 〈…〉 rth Therefore saith Sander it is not breade and 〈…〉 ine that is set forth but the body and bloud of Christ. 〈◊〉 answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of breade and wine Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach in all his writinges alâ—hough intreating of so high a mysterie hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically as Hom. 6. he saith The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred is the place of Angels the place of Archangels the palace of heauen heauen it selfe Nam hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas Mensam istam vide cuius gratia constituta sit quapropter For doest thou doubt that heauen is here behold this table for whose cause and wherefore it is set CAP. XI No figure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently guiltie of Christes naturall bodie Sander confesseth that when a man by willfull contempt doth breake or defile the kings image it is reputed all one as if he had striken the prince himselfe not because the deede is one but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe But he saith this similitude is not like because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vpon the reall fact it selfe then vpon the will or minde of the dooer I answere there is no worde in saint Paul to prooue that he maketh his argument vpon the reall fact which is eating and drinking but vpon eating and drinking vnworthily which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing I answere the argument holdeth as well or neglecting as of contemning that which Ch 〈…〉 commaunded to be regarded although it be a greater fault to contemne then to neglect Secondarily saith Sander they that say the signe image or figure of Christs bodie is abused must shewe wherein that figure doth consist and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images external internal c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth in forme or shape are like to Christs bodie and bloude but in the vse and ende of them which is to nourish bodily as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vs is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vs spiritually of which spirituall feeding and nourishing the bread and wine being sanctified to that vse are not a bare naked or emptie signe Image or figure but a fuil perfect and effectuall seale confirmation and assurance to as many as receive yâ— same bread and wine being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin theÌ„ in baptisme of his body and bloud where vnto we are incorporated thereby then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament namelie then in Manna or the shewbread of which Sander speaketh But it is a thing neuer heard of saith Sander that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud therefore there is some other substante vnder the formes of bread and wine then was in Manna c Although the scripture saith not in so many words that he that did eate Manna vnworthily was guiltie of yâ— body of Christ yet in effect it saith the same and the same by necessarie consequence may be inferred He that did eate the same spirituall meate that we do vnworthily was so guiltie the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily for God was not pleased â—ith them as the Apostole saith therfore they were guil 〈…〉 e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply â—nd say it was not the same that we eate and drink First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expresly the rocke was Christ of whom wee 〈…〉 te and drinke S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe cap. 2 â—aith expressely they did eate the same spiritual meate that 〈…〉 ve doe for Manna was Christ vnto them Cyrill in Ioan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vnto those old fathers The like by Analogie is prooued of all other sacraments But Sander replyeth the â—ewes must then haue prepared examined themselues â—uerie day which is not reade of who doubteth but the Godly Iewes so did that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke and it is reade that they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes Why then saith Sander if it were so it had required more perfection in the law then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare and surely at the most but once a day wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked for 40. yeares The Law which is spirituall requireth more perfection then any man can performe but to argue what perfection is required of vs by that we vse corruptly is as grosse a fault in reasoning as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day so often they were to prepare and examine themselues And what if I say that euerie day although a man doe not receiue hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe as when he doth receiue But wee receiue but once a day at the most saith hee verily they receiued oftner because it was not onelie a spirituall meate but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues as our Sacrament is not wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament so coulde not they at that time Howe be it when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray which wee ought to doe more then once a day I would know what preparation or examination is necessarie for them that receiue the Sacrament excepting the onely relation of receiuing but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vnto God I speak not as Sander doth howe vnreuerently men vse to pray but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God CAP. XII The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating of the name of flesh bodie bloud eating drinking and such like wordes And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe and the fruite of the vine as for
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
trueth of that bodie whereof the visible sacrament was a signe token and argument and so vsed by Tertullian againste the Marcionites that likewise denyed the veritie of Christes body Wherefore in this Chapter Sander prooueth nothing lesse then in the title he promiseth CAP. IX That no man possibly can bee condemned for beleeuing the bodie of Christ to bee really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar His title is of no man possibly but his demonstration is a simple poore man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers vpon coulour of Christes almightie power and will pretended in promising that he will giue his fleshe and wordes in saying this is my body As for them that are simplie deceaued they stand or fal to God I will neither iudge of their condemnation nor absolution But such as obstinately defende that error contrarie to their owne conscience as a great number of the Papistes which pretende faith and seeke nothing else but the ouerthrowe of faith and the glorie of God for as much as that error employeth a deniall of the trueth of Christes humanitie and consequentlie the trueth of the resurrection of our bodies which must be made like vnto the glorious bodie of Christ and inferreth manifest Idolatrie in worshipping that for GOD which is a meere creature I see not howe they can escape eternall damnation As for their defence which Sander maketh is friuolous First of the almightie power of God which is to doe whatsoeuer he will and is agreable to his glorie and not whatsoeuer we will imagine He can not therfore make his body to be in many places at once or to bee without dimension of quantitie or to bee inuisible and intangible because hee hath determined of his will to the contrarie in fiue hundreth places of scripture which testifie of the trueth of his humanitie like vnto his bretheren in all poyntes without sinne Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotencie that hee can not doe contrarie to his will which were against his owne glorie It is no infirmitie in God that he cannot lye that hee cannot sinne that he cannot denie himselfe nor doe contrarie to his will glory but an argument of his power wisedome and goodnesse And whereas Sander saith that Christ hath determined his will in saying The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world I answere hee hath determined no such will of giuing his flesh in the Sacrament by these wordes but of giuing his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the worlde which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith not onely in the supper but in baptisme without both the sacraments by faith onely which was eaten of all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ without the eating of which breade of life no mortall creature can bee partaker of eternall life Further where Sander saith that Christ saide This is my bodie and gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragments or peeces whereby he shewed that hee made the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuers places c I answere he declared no will of multiplying his bodie in diuers places at one time by such words or fact For seeing he had so often before testified the truth of his humanity in somuch that he termed himselfe vsually the sonne of man and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for triall of the truth of his resurrection these wordes were not sufficient to teach his disciples that his natural bodie could at one time be visible and inuisible tangible and intangible in locall situation and not in locall situation to be whole in one place and whole in manie places to haue quantitie actually of length bredth and thickenes to haue no quantitie actually of length breadth thicknes these contradictions I say being against nature reasoÌ„ sense his former doctrine and the scriptures touching the trueth of his naturall bodie and his argument taken of the senses after his resuâ—rection coulde not bee perswaded with onely saying This is my bodie for as much as they had hearde him saye manie thinges in like phrase where no like vnderstanding could be imagined and the scripture speaking of the sacraments vseth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacramentes Wherefore there is no doubt but the disciples vnderstood these words figuratiuely sacramentally and spiritually And concerning the fragments and peeces whereof Sander speaketh he is a shamed to call them fragments or peeces of bread as Cyrillus doth of whom he borowed the phrase lest he should acknowledge breade to be any part of the Sacrament But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ concerning transubstantiation of the breade into his bodie which euen the schoolemen affirme cannot be prooued out of the scriptures And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme induceth Christ saying that one of his works cannot be contrarie to another seeing his ascension abiding in heauen and comming from thence to iudgement are contrarie to this imagined presence and those articles are plainely and manifestly set forth to be beleeued howe can these onely foure wordes This is my bodie which may haue another interpretation agreeable to all the sayings and workes of God make such a declaration of the will of Christ as thereby the trueth of his humanitie remaining after it was assumed of the deitie and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon the ascension abyding of Christ in heauen and his comming from thence to iudgement although in words they be not denyed yet are and must be brought in doubt question and vncerteintie The other false bragges of this interpretation vniuersally receiued and alwayes taught and beleeued I omitte with his shameles slaunders of Luthers life and death wherof the one hath beene sufficiently and many times confuted the other is so well knowen and to so manie wise and godly with whom he liued and among whom he dyed that next vnto the autoritie of the scriptures no one thing more discouereth the falshood of the Papists then their impudeÌ„t slanders and lyes maliciously deuised against the true professors of the Gospel The seuenth Booke To the Preface SAnder hauing finished the sixt booke supposed to haue ended his labour but then came forth the B. of Salisburies replie vnto Doctor Hardings booke wherevpon he was moued to answere that article which concerned the reall presence But because the words of both their bookes were too large to bee inserted in this his volume hee hath chosen the pyth of either as hee affirmeth with such fidelitie as Master Iewell should finde no fault with him For my part I was likewise purposed to haue omitted the answere of this appendix partly because Master Iewels defense of the Apologie being set foorth after this booke of Sander the chiefe matters are therein by Master Iewel himselfe wayed and
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
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life