your doctrine because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures But the faithfull you thinke for all that were not so straite laced but beleeued them vppon their owne worde both Christ and his Apostles because of the spirite of trueth that he sent to them And God be thanked we as faithfull men acknowledge without controuersie the spirite of trueth in Christ and his Apostles But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely sayeth Bristow but also to his Church after them for euer We doubt not but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church but not in such full measure as to his Apostles And if he had how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite but by tryall of the scriptures which were vndoubtedly written by the same spirite Bristow saith the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church at all times for the same spirite then the Apostles He must first proue the spirite so giuen to the Church that shee can no more erre in her decrees then the Apostles could in their writings Secondly if that were proued the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations which all boast of the spirite of trueth as much as the true Church And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirite but trye the spirites whether they be of God we knowe none so sure a triall as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures whether it be a multitude of men or seueral persons of one age or another of one degree or other that offreth to teache any doctrine which he or they pretende to haue of the spirite of God Last of all where I sayde Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth and therefore I wâ—y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe Bristowe noteth in the margent It is pryde to follow the fathers and humilitie to condemne them Whereto I aunswere to boast of the fathers to maintaine an olde errour is stinking pryde and it is not against true humilitie to make fathers and mothers and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde reuealed in the holy scriptures The second parte Being tolde that the question betweene vs is not as he maeketh it of the Scriptures authoritie but of the meaning howe there likewise against all the expositors he maketh the same exception of onely scripture requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture When in all this Chapter you deny onely scripture to be of soueraine authoritie sufficiency and credite to teache vs all the will of God are you not impudent to saye the question is not of the authoritie of the Scriptures But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning and not of the authoritie Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood bâ— on our side or on the auncient doctors side for the meaning of the scripture What then I aunswere the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie where some of the doctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes This aunswere I trust will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie After this he sayeth I count my selfe and my companions happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the coÌ„mentaries of doctors but as he troweth not without the coÌ„mentaries of Caluine But herein as in all things almost he belyeth mee for I neuer spake word against the reading of the coÌ„mentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition without weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places Likewise where I compare the whole heape of superstition errour out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill Bristowe noteth that I make the doctors writings a dunghill Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors as the sweeping of a faire house is meete to be cast on a dunghill Let Bristowe or Allen if he list say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors And yet it followeth not that the doctors writings are a dunghill more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse blindnesse c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scriptures where I sayde wee shalbe neuer the more certeine of the trueth whether wee challenge or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding the scriptures to the doctors Bristowe aunswereth whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree shall bee euer most certaine of trueth which is inoughe though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning Wee are then much the neere when the question is of the scriptures meaning if by the consent of the doctors we cannot be certaine of the scriptures meaning And if that trueth as we beleeue that all trueth is in the scriptures howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures Where I aunswere that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite as the doctors had although wee agree not with them in all interpretations euen as Cyprian and Cornelius were both indued with Gods spirite although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures Bristowe replyeth that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè though explicitè hee were of an erronious iudgement And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring because hee qâ—eâ—ly continueth in vnitie with them and doth not obstinately holde his error against them But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs for neither will wee bee reformed by them neither woulde they be reformed by Aâ—rius Iouinianus c. whom he calleth our forefathers If you haue no greater diuersitie then this the case will be all one for neither woulde Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade of Catholikes in their time as wee can make in this time although they woulde not bee reformed by Aerius an heretike yet charitie moueth vs to thinke they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Catholike Where I conclude that the harde places of scripture are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier adding the ordinarie meanes of witt learning c. adding that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may eaâ—ie bee deceiued Bristowe noteth a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman ought to bee ignoraunt in the 〈…〉 riptures
by this argument The scripture testifieth that all which the Apostles taught was first taught of Christ himself before theÌ„ Heb. 2. but whatsoeuer Christ taught is written in the Gospel Luk. 1. Act. 5. Iohn 20. c. therefore whatsoeuer the Apâ—stles taught is written And therfore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition receiued by preaching iâ— bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures giuen by the same spirit The fourth text iâ— 2. Tim. 3. which I alledge in these words saith Bristow Purg. 410. All goodworkes are taught by the scriptures which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes First he taketh exception that these are not the wordes of S. Paul Indeede my wordes are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded vpon the scripture which Bristowe suppresseth But supposing that Saint Paul had saide so what a fonde reasoning is this saith Bristoâ— because one euidence proueth all therefore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely Sir if one euidence prooue all that which is not prooued by that euidence is not prooued at all But if to prooue that which is prooued alreadie by that one euidence you haue other good euidence no man letteth you to vse them Wherefore this is no fond kinde of resoning Maister Brâ—stow but such as the best Logicians do teach All good workes are taught by the scriptures therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures is no good worke But nowe S. Paul saith not that all good workes are taught by the scripture saith Bristowe Hee saith the scriptures are profitable he saith not are able or sufficient to teach all good works Againe he speaketh only of the worke of an Euangelist and not of all good workes To this I aunswere that immediately before Paul saide The scriptures are able to make Timothie wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesu but no man can bee wise vnto saluation but he that knoweth all good workes meete for a Christian man to doe therefore all good workes meete for a Christian man to do may be learned by the scripture And euen in this very text where he saith Al the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of trueth to disprouing of falshoode to correcting of vices to instructing in righteousnes that the man of God that is the Euangelist be perfect furnished to euerie good worke although you restraine euerie worke to the only worke of an Euangelist yet that I saide is necessarily concluded thereof For it is some part of an Euangelists worke to giue example in all good workes that are meet to be done by other men but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished c. therefore all good workes are taught by the scripture Againe when all the office of an Euangelist which consisteth in teaching disputing correcting instructing in righteousnes may be perfectly furnisht at the scriptures what can be more playne to prooue that nothing ought to bee taught for truth disprooued for error corrected for vice instructed for righteousnesse but that which is taught disproued corrected instructed out of the holy scriptures Seeing therfore that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead is not taught by the scripture it is no trueth To deny prayer to be profitable for the deade is not disproued by the scripture therefore it is no error To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture therfore it is no vice MeÌ„ are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead therefore it is no worke of righteousnes The 5. 6. texts I alledge together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures and trie the spirites to proue that the certeintie of trueth in vnderstanding the Scriptures is not to be had but by the spirite and the spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures Against this conference Bristow saieth Who euer alledged Scripture more blindly And why so I pray you because Christ saieth in the same place that Iohn did beare witnesse to the truth My workes doe beare witnesse of me Also My father who hath sent mee hee hath giuen witnesse of mee In dèed 〈◊〉 Bristowe could proue that Iohn Baptist Christes miracles or God his father did testifie any thing of him which was not before contained in the Scriptures neither had Christ giuen a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures neither is that sentence able to proue that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture But if the testimonie of Iohn of the workes of God the father do all confirme the Scriptures who euer alledged scripture more blindly then Bristow to proue that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the newe Testament the old when Christ sendeth the Iewes to the old Testament as a sufficient witnesse of him Concerning the triall of spirits Bristow biddeth me looke in the text by this we knowe a spirit of trueth a spirite of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles I like it very well For where shall wee heare the Apostles speaking but in their writings in the other holy writings according to which they spake all that they taught Wherfore here is no tryall of the spirites but by the scriptures And where he sayeth the Romanes doe moste manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles because no man can name that time the noueltie the seducer that they went after although it were true that no man could in any point shew as he sayeth yet the argument is naught seeing it is proued by the Apostles writings that they holde many things not onely beside but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles The 7. text iâ— Pur. 285. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes and a lanterne vnto our feere therefore wee will not walke in the darknesse of manâ— traditions The faithfull testimonie of Gods word only giueth true light vnto the eyes But the Prophet sayeth Bristow neither hath the worde only nor saith that Gods word is not but in writing for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles To the fiâ—st quarrell I aunswere that I alledge not the wordes of the Prophet but his meaning which Bristowe cannot denye to be the onely worde of God that giueth 〈…〉 ue light to the eyes That Gods worde is not but in 〈…〉 riting I neuer sayde or thought but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of Gods worde but in the Scripture I affirme 〈…〉 nd that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before conteined though not so clearely in the lawe 〈…〉 nd the Prophets Last of all you alledge and saye against Iudas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus saith Bristowe Pur. 210. In the law not so much â—s one pinne of the tabernacle was omitted lest any â—hing might be left to the will of man to deuise in the worship of God You shall not doe sayth the Lorde what seemeth good in your
owne eyes but that which I commaunde you that onely shall you do without adding any thing to it or taking any thing away from it After a fonde quarrell of the quotation omitted by the printer and his coniecture thereupon Moses sayeth not saith Bristowe That onely which I doe write but that onely which I commaund And so our sauiour Christe commaundeth the Iewes accordingly The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire and therefore whatsoeuer they commaund you obserue it I aske no better wee must obserue that only which God coÌ„mandeth whether Moses or any other of the Prophets apostles or Euangelists haue written it whether the Scribes or Pharisees pastors or teachers do preach it But where shal we finde that which God hath coÌ„maunded but in the law the prophets in the writings of the apostles euangelists which are able to make vs wise to saluation which are profitable to make that man of god perfect prepared to al good works As for the pinnes saith Bristow you may see in the doctors they were not for that cause you imagine of leauing nothing to mans deuise in that worship of God For how say you then by Dauid Salomon who changed not only a pinne but all the pinnes the whole tabernacle into the temple ordeined musicall instruments and manye other thinges for the worship of God that the lawe did not mention I aunswere whatsoeuer Dauid and Salomon chaunged and ordeyned they did not by the deuise of man but by reuelation from God who had ordeined them to doe it But mine error is sayeth Bristow because I do not distinguish betwene men that haue onely their owne humaine spirites and men that haue the spirite of God as Moses the Propheâ—â— and Apostles and the catholike Church I were in deedâ— in a grosse errour if I could not distinguish the spirite of God from the spirite of man But Bristowe erreth because he confoundeth men that were specially chosen to receiue the worde of God by reuelation and the same to preach and write as the Prophets and Apostles with the Church which consisteth of men hauing the spirite of adoption but for the certeintie of trueth buylded vpon the foundation of the Prophets Apostles or else erring if they depart from that foundation The digression he maketh to the vnlearned brother because I knowe not the treatise against which he writeth I omitt But where he returneth to admonish mee his fellowe Fulke as he calleth mee to looke better to my Logike concerning mine argument ab authoritate nâ—gaâ—iuâ— I do him to witt that God I thanke I am not to learne Logike nor the force of an argument of authoritie negatiuely of him The argument that angreth him is this All true doctrine is taught in the Scriptures Purgatorie is not taught in the scriptures therefore Purgatorie is no true doctrine Here are two faultes sayeth Bristowe one because the maior is false the other supposing the maior were true yet cannot the argument be opposed to our arguments of traditions councels fathers I will first proue the maior That whereby the man of God may be made perfect furnished to all good workes is taught in the Scriptures 2. Tim. 3. All true doctrine is that whereby the man of God may be made perfect prepared to all good workes Therefore all true doctrineâ—s taught by the scriptures Againe That which is able to make a man wise to saluation teacheth all true doctrine needefull to saluation for of other truethes we speake not but the scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation ergo 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth all true doctrine And concer 〈…〉 g the seconde fault which supposeth the maior mi 〈…〉 were true yet denyeth the argument I woulde 〈…〉 sh you fellowe Bristowe to looke better to your 〈…〉 gike howe an argument that is true in matter and 〈…〉 rme may not be opposed against you But you 〈…〉 ing a wittie example if you prooue a doctrine vnto 〈…〉 câ— out of the olde testament and I oppose therunto 〈…〉 y negatiue argument and saye All true doctrine 〈…〉 aught in the newe Testament that doctrine is not 〈…〉 ght in the newe testament therefore that doctrine 〈…〉 o true doctrine You aske mee whether this be well 〈…〉 posed of mee I aunswere no neither woulde I euer 〈…〉 pose such an argument against you which though it 〈◊〉 true in forme yet it is manifestly false in matter 〈…〉 r if you suppose the maior to be true as you say that 〈…〉 olde it and must holde it especially if you say so then 〈…〉 he minor vtterly false for then no doctrine is taught 〈◊〉 the olde testament but the same is taught also in 〈◊〉 newe Testament Wherefore this example prooueth 〈…〉 t but that mine argument ab authoritate negatiuè is 〈…〉 ghtly opposed against traditions councels fathers 〈…〉 ch like as auouch any doctrine for true which is not 〈…〉 ght in the Scriptures in which all trueth is taught The second part Of Scriptures alledged concerning the question of the Church â—â—d first what he alledgeth indefinitely that the Church may 〈…〉 re The firste text cited Ar. 86. Euery man is a lyar â—herfore the whole Chuch militant consisting of men â—hich are al lyars may erre alltogether Against this Bristowe asketh Why I doe not saye 〈…〉 e Church triumphant And demaundeth whether 〈…〉 at also doe not consist of men I aunswere the scrip 〈…〉 re Psalm 116. speaketh of men liuing in this worlde 〈…〉 d such as are meere men lest he should cauill at our 〈…〉 uiour Christ which is a man and yet not contained in this generall rule As for the members of the triumphant Church whether they may properly be câ—lled men I will not dispute but wee speake as the scripture speaketh of men on earth and the Church o 〈…〉 â—arth And therefore although it be true that somâ— men by the gifte of God are veraces true yet nere which may not erre And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather Purg. 451. God onely is not true if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot erre is not auoided by saying the Apostles cannot erre For vndoubtedly the Apostles did erre That their preachings and writings were not erronious it was because they were not theirs but the enditing of the holy ghoste by them But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope it is manifest by this that he hath spoken contrary to the spirite of God in the Scriptures not onely in matters of controuersie betweene him and vs but also in heresies condemned by both partes The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I saye The true onely Church of God hath no such priuilege graunted but that she may be deceiued in some things for her knowledge is vnperfect her prophecying is vnperfect Bristowe replyeth that S. Paul in that speach includeth him selfe Our knowledge our prophecying c. is vnperfect whether we speake or write And sayth that he troweth I will
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 〈…〉
to be beleeued on euen as God And where the Apostle saith that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood he meaneth not that we must beleue in the blood of Christ as it is a creature but that the death and blood-shedding of Christ is the meane of our reconciliation vnto God But the Nicene Creede Hieronyme contra Lucif vse the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam to beleeue in the Church I answere they meane no more thereby then they which vse the distinction Credere in Deum Credere Deo Credere Deum which Bristowe saith hath deceiued me Augustine as Bristowe confesseth maketh it proper to God that we beleeue in him We beleeue not in Peter we beleeue not in Paule In Iohn 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creede or Hieronyme contrary thereto that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church but in God only Therfore although they speak otherwise then Augustine they meane not otherwise then he Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede writeth both plainly and effectually Sequitur namque post c. For it followeth after this saying The holy Catholique Church the remission of sinnes the resurrection of the bodie he saith not in the holy Catholique Church in the remission of sinnes in the resurrection of the fleshe For if he had added the preposition In the sense should haue bene made one and the same with the former articles But euen in those termes truly where faith is ordered of the diuinitie it is saide in God the father and in Christ his sonne and in the holy Ghost But in the rest where the speach is not of the Godhead but of creatures and the mysteries the preposition In is not added that it should be said we must beleeue in the holy Church but the holy Church not as God but as the Church gathered into God And that men should beleue that there is remission of sinnes not in the remission of sinnes that they should beleeue the resurrection of the body not in the resurrection of the body Therefore by this syllable of the Preposition the Creator is distinguished from the creatures and things diuine are separated from things humane Neuerthelesse Bristowe saith they beleue both in God in Christ and in his Saints and inuocate them all though not all alyke but then let him heare what Cyprian saith De duplici Martyrio Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the hope of his whole felicity Whervpon it followeth that they which beleeue in saints place some part of their hope of felicite in thē not in God alone by his iudgment by the iudgment of the Apostle also beleeue not in God Where I said if Saints also are to be inuocated then God alone knoweth not the heartes of all men and God onely is not to be worshipped and serued and Christ is not our onely Mediatour and Aduocate Bristowe calleth it iangling without allegations I supposed these principles had bene sufficiently knowen to euerie learned Papist without allegations but seeing Bristowe will not take knowledge of them because he knoweth not how to shift his handes of them For the first my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Salomon in his prayer sayth vnto God What prayers or supplications shal be made of any man or of all thy people Israel when euerie one shal knowe the plague in his own hart and stretche foorth his handes in this house Heare thou then in heauen in thy dwelling place and be merciful and doe and giue euery man according to all his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the harts of al the children of men For the second that God only is to be worshiped and serued it is the saying of our sauiour Christ Math. 4. Luk 4. Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue That Christe onely is our Mediator and Aduocate Saint Paule testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ in which place he speaketh of Prayer supplications intercessions c. to be made for all men And Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. If any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins But saith Brist as I say to Ambrose others whom I confesse to be of the true Church so must I saie it to Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. for inuocating the holy Angells But I finde not that Iohn did inuocate the holy Angels in that place although the seuen spirites from whom he wisheth grace should not be the holy Ghost but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost For he that prayeth that God will sende raine from heauen doth not inuocate heauen But I must saie the same to God him self for making an Angell to be worshiped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapiter where I haue told him mine answere likewise to the Angell Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saintes and to the 24. Seniors which had sweete odours that is prayers in bowles c. But there is no such neede the Angell Apoc. 8. representeth Christe the onely high priest that hath authoritie to stande at the altar in heauen and offer incense and to present the prayers of the Churche that they may be acceptable to God Heb. 13. The Elders are the Churche of God in the whole world whose prayers and supplications only our sauiour Christ maketh acceptable But it maketh nothing against our Mediatour to God saith Bristowe though we are and haue neuer so many Mediatours so that all make suite to God by him Then it maketh no matter howe many petie Gods we haue so one be principal as Plato taught Againe he saith it is nothing against God alone to be worshipped so that we worshippe none but for him If this were true it were lawfull to worship the Diuel because hee is Gods minister and hath great power vnder him yea our Sauiour Christ had not aunswered his temptation when he required to be worshipped as one that had all the glorie of the world committed by God to him to bestowe at his pleasure in saying it is written Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him only shalt thou serue Last of all he saith it is nothing against God aboue to know our harts so that all others knowe them by him But Salomon reasoneth that God onely is to be called vpon because he onely knoweth the heartes of all men And where findeth Bristowe that all others or any one by God knoweth the heartes of all men To conclude the worde onely excludeth no more with Bristowe then he list to admitte by his blinde distinctions which if they may be permitted against the plaine sense and wordes of the Scriptures nothing shal be
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
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
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
most places and persons alwaies 27 Christes church is nowe by GOD enlarged further than the Popish church Ar. 12. 3. 69. Contra It is but a small flocke in comparison of the malignant church of Antichrist whose number is as the sand of the sea Apoc. 20. The Popish Church is not so large as the malignant Church of Sathan by many partes which containeth all the wicked of the world the name of Antichrist is added by Bristow Yet are there more Antichristes than the Pope although he be the chiefe that sitteth in the temple of God 28 It is a good argument that the Popish church is not the church of Christ because it was neuer hidden since it first sprang vp in so much that you can name the notable persons in all ages in their gouernement and ministerie and especially the succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order vpon your fingers And it were a token that our church were not the true church if wee could name such notable persons in their gouernement and ministerie Ar. 27. Contra Such officers as are necessarie for the conseruation of Gods people in the vnitie of faith and the knowledge of Christe our Church hath neuer lacked notwithstanding that through iniurie of the time because our Church had not so many Registers Chroniclers and remembrauncers the remembraunce of all their names is not come vnto vs. For the authoritie of the Bible we haue the testimonie of the true Church in all ages Our congregation hath euer had possession of the Scriptures GOD hath neuer suffered the true Church to be destitute of the necessarie vse of the Scripture Which the Popish Church hath so kept in an vnknowne tongue that the people could haue no vse much lesse the necessarie vse thereof The Church of GOD hath alwayes had Schooles and Vniuersities for the maintenance of godly learning The true Catholike Church hath alwayes resisted all false opinions It was neuer so secrete nor hidden but it might be knowne of all those that had eyes to see it That a thousand yeares there was gathering together for preaching ministring and correcting God hath alway stirred vp some faithfull teachers The Church hath neuer bene afraide to doe her office towardes her children and true members in teaching exhorting comforting confirming c. Ar. 28. 27. 9. 6. 5. 52. 11. 74. 75. 26. 82. In these large propositions howesoeuer they be patched I see no contradiction Except these be contraditories The Church was sometime hidden from her enemies and yet where shee was gathered did performe all duties to her friendes and children It was not seene of the blinde but it was seene of them that had eies 29 The Popish Church was neuer hidden since it first sprang vp Ar. 27. Contra The Church of Rome hath not alwayes practised open preaching and neuer preached the worde of trueth Ar. 85. There was small preaching before the orders of begging friers began to supply the want of the pastors And yet the popish Church glistered in her whorish pompe 30 Touching the text Matthewe 5. of a citie built vpon an hill which can not be hidden after he hath giuen his sense of it he saith Hereby it appeareth howe fondly some Papistes and some of the Doctors in their errour doe expound this place to groue that the Church must alwayes bee visible Ar. 100. Contra euen in his owne exposition there It is properly meant of the Apostles and their suâ—â—essours the Ministers of the Church he teacheth them aboue all other men to looke diligently to their life and conuersation for as they excell in place and dignitie so the eyes of all men are set vpon them As a citie builded vpon an hill must needes be seene of all that come neare it so they being placed in so high an office and dignitie shall be noted and marked aboue all other men One part of the Church is alwayes visible to the eyes of all men and can not be hidden and yet the whole Church and so also that part is not alwayes visible but may be hidden and was hidden for a thousand yeares So he saith The whole Church which is the mysticall body of Christe is inuisible Although the ministers of the Church and their conuersation can not be hidden from the members of euery particular Church 31 The true Church decaied immediatly after the Apostles time And so the errour of praying for the dead was continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ vnto a plaine departing away into the Church of Antichrist Contra The Primitiue pure church for the space of an hundreth yeares after Christ. Againe Anno 607. The church fled into the wildernesse there to remaine a long season where she hath not decayed but bene alwaies preserued vntill God should bring her againe to open light nowe in our daies The true church shall neuer decay but alway reigne with Christ. The false synagogue shall ' daily more and more decay vntill it be vtterly destroied with Antichrist the head thereof If this be not contradiction it is much worse to wit that Luther and his Apostles haue giuen vs a visible church which shall not decay Whereas Christ and his Apostles gaue vs a visible church which did decay yea and plainely depart away into Apostasie The places shew that decaying hath double vnderstanding The true Church soone after the Apostles decayed in syncerity yet neuer decayed nor shall decay in continuance Luther gaue no Church but euen that Church which is best lightened by his preaching may decay in sincerity if the pastors be not diligent to teach the word of God simply 32 At euery word hee calleth the Pope Antichrist and the head of the malignant church Contra in some places he maketh two distinct heades and their distinct companies As when Mahomet in the East and Antichrist the Pope in the West seduced the world then the church fled into the wildernesse Againe The Popish church is not in euery part of the world for Mahomets sect is in the greatest part Ar. 16. 65. I call the Pope Antichrist oftentimes but that I call the Pope head of the malignant Church though Bristowe saith I doe it at euery word yet he is not able to note one place where I doe it rather Bristowe maketh a flat contradiction in saying of me At euery word he calleth the Pope the head of the malignant church Contra In some places he maketh two distinct heades and their distinct companies 33 That the true church may erre and hath erred notwithstanding any priuiledge it hath by Gods spirit we heard him say cap. 3. Nowe to the contrarie Neither hath the spirit of God failed to leade her into all trueth There be some prerogatiâ—es of Gods spirite that are necessarie for the saluation of Gods elect as the gift of vnderstanding the gift of faith c. And these the spouse of Christe hath neuer wanted True faith c. might be signes of the true church The spouse
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.
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
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
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
was wrought by them As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh against the Pagans of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr which he would haue me to applie to my disease was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie not to the setting vp or mainteyning thereof And what worshippe I pray you was giuen to the reliques of Babylas If God shewed miracles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne as by the bones of Elizeus yet it followeth not that his body or ashes were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were Concerning inuocation of Angels which they haue common with the Caianes Bristowe sheweth that the Caianes had other greater heresies which the papistes holde not as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser The superstition of Angels that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians and Collossians to beware of hee sayth they be cleare of it because in all their prayers they conclude per Christum c. Through Christ our Lorde as though they that taught the superstition of Angels did cleane exclude Christ or that it was to be doubted lest the Ephesians and Collosians would forsake Christ and cleaue to Angels but rather lest with the religion of Christ as the cheefe they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati bowed downe in the worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith which therefore helde not the heade because they worshipped not him alone but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie That Angels are ministring spirits it proueth not that therefore they must be prayed vnto but the contrarie for inuocation is due onely to him on whome wee beleeue which is God onely So much the more blasphemous is Bristowe that chargeth Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. to haue prayed to the Angels where he sayth Grace and peace bee to you from him that is and was and is to come and from the 7. spirites that are before his throne and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all auncient writers is that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost which is seuen folde in his graces according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him the spirite of wisedome and vnderstanding the spirite of counsell and power c. And it is also euident that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God according to the number of seuen Churches of Asia to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels as some late writers do yet it followeth not that S. Iohn shoulde pray vnto them in those wordes but rather to God for their ministerie to the preseruation of the Churches No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vnto them from heauen it followeth that he prayeth vnto heauen That phrase is often in the Psalmes wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion from the holy Hill from the Temple from heauen and yet no man was so madde to say that prayers was made to Sion to the Hill to the Temple to heauen And yet it is more monstrous that hee chargeth me to forget that in the same booke of the Apocalips God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come and to adore before the feete of one Angell And they shall know that I haue loued thee c. I speak vnto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it Wast thou awake when thou didest pâ—ruse this argument and allowed it Tell me by thy credite is this the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this controuersie Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen is any of those Angels neither whote nor colde in the seruice of God hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade hath any of them left his first loue doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach c Out vpon thine impudence if thou affirme all this and fie vpon thy negligence if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest As for thee Bristowe it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master reproued for thy fault at this time to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast that darest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of the holy scripture against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of 3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate and from marriage Bristow would haue the question of prescript fasting dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one as they are accompted among the Papistes But there is great difference For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes appointed by the church to be obserued did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster teach abstinence from flesh Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse that the Papists haue the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche For on their prescript fasting dayes except for necessitie they did eate neither fish nor flesh nor any thing vntill the euening As for the abstinence from meates against which Iouinian did teach was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues not onely from fleshe but also from fish and wine also as appeareth by Hieronyme con Iouin lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces c. Neither say we this sayth Hieronyme that we deny fishes and the rest of meates if a mans will may be taken in meate but as wee preferre virginitie before marriage so fasting and the spirite before fulnesse flesh Likewise in diuers places he speaketh of the abstinence from wine Furthermore he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie from the Tatianistes Manichees Montanistes If I brought no proofe in that place it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting And that the Manichees in their electes and the Tatianistes in their perfectes allowed not marriage out of Epiphanius Augustine But where I charge the Papistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh Bristowe sayeth I take Richard for Robert because the Aerians abstained from fleshe as the Manichees Tatianistes Montanistes as perteining to the yll god according to the heresie of the Valentinians Admit it were so yet how caÌ„ either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues
of the condition of all infantes which is not chaunged by baptisme although sinne be not imputed vnto them Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme is abolished in baptisme what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of baptisme be angry with them that haue taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme is this no sinne But what infant can examine himselfe of this sinne And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will haue to examine himselfe As for the distinction of Votum explicitum implicitum he sendeth vs to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. c. For how can we be assured that children haue a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion Or how can it be proued That they haue any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infantes against all reason and without all scriptures wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable Last of all hee chargeth mee with falsification by adding because the councell of Trent saith that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis some times and in some places But I pray thee Bristowe what haue I falsified the councel of Trent which thou affirmest that I did neuer read Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes were not so many as Fulke doeth make them Why howe many doe I make them I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augustines time were in this error that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ was to bee ministred to infantes And haue I not playnely and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine where is then this falsification If I had not prooued that which I sayde yet there is difference betwixt falsification and a false affirmation And because the Tridentine councell sayth it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli de Coron mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius and Lotharius and after citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised Si Episcopus c. If the Bishop be present it must bee immediately confirmed and then communicated If the Bishop bee not present before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing let the Prieste giue him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST yea before the Masse if necessitie require By this Testimonie it appeareth not onely that this custome was long obserued but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie so that masse should not be taried for if the infant were in any danger Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes and not of olde and 1. touching the bodies of Angels According to the demaunde of the challenger which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church to bee shewed him I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors which are not the matters in controuersie betweene vs but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church but those which I note vpon such occasion willeth all them that would know the true Church to consider that these errors if they bee any are so fewe and so light that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time no lesse then of olde time considering it is no lesse but much more vnreproueable of the aduersarie Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme they are sufficient if they were but one to proue that which I intend namely that the Popishe Church hath erred which being proued the surest piller of Poperie is broken and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures the true Church of God when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred will shewe themselues to bee errors which had nothing else to gayne them credite but this one false principle That the Popishe Church can not erre And touching the bodies of Angels where I say Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that Angels and soules of men had bodies were visible and circumscriptible and therefore must bee paynted affirming this to be the iudgement of the Catholike Church Bristowe answereth that I misreport the matter for it is not the councells determination nor saying but the saying onely of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica rehearsed in the councell with an admonition giuen by Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that ouerthrew the images of our Lorde his vndefiled mother seeing this holy father doth shew that Angels also may be painted But the trueth is as may apeare to euery man that wil read the Councel act 5 that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter After the saying of Ioannes is rehearsed in which this grosse error is conteined Tharasius the archb of Const. thereupon concludeth Ostendit autem pater quòd angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt vt homines apparuerunt This father sheweth that we ought to paint the angels also seeing they may be circumscribed haue appeared as men by which it is manifest that Tharasius approueth the opinion of Ioannes Would you now haue the determination of the Councel It followeth immediatly Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde By this it is manifest that not I but Bristow hath misreported the matter Where I sayde If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites haue bodies visible and circumscriptible there was neuer any errour since the world began Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith Soft man other manner of errours haue beene defended since the world began I wot well greater but if any of them be a manifest errour this is as manifest as any of them all Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this error that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it Basilius Athanasius Methodius yea Augustine he sayeth make a question of it In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers sounding to such a purpose it onely by mistaking the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or corpus which they vsed generally for that which nowe in the schooles according to Aristotle is called 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substantia substance comprehending both bodies and spirits not that euer they thought that angels spirites soules of men had visible and circumscriptible bodyes such as may be set forth by painting or such as the bodies of men beastes are or that they consisted either of ayery of fyery matter as that blynd Bishopp so imagined out of that verse of the Psalme 104. He maketh his Angels spirits and his ministers a burning fyer Last of all he sayeth there is no determination of the Church to condemne the assertion as heretical thoughe there be sufficient to count it temerarious erronious whither it be hereticall I will not nowe dispute seeing by Bristowe it is granted to be an errour I haue sufficiently proued that it was mainteined by the whole Councell which was as much as I required for that point 2 Touching the Popes superioritie ouer the Councell The determinations of the Pope and of the generall Councell being accompted among the Papistes as the rules of trueth I sayde are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them which of them is superior to other the Pope ouer the Councell or the Councell ouer the Pope that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certeintie of trueth in either of them To this Bristow answereth that he thinketh him selfe able to satisfie me or any other reasonable man if he saith that then we are in a right beliefe when we hold those determinations that are the determinatioÌ„s iointly both of the Pope of the Councel as those of Trent But he is gretly deceiued for while it is in doubt whether may erre ech part chargeth other with erring it may be there is none other likelyhod to the contrary but that they do both erre so that neither I nor any other reasonable maÌ„ may safely tye our faith to any of their determinatioÌ„s For they wherof either part may err being seuered may also erre but when they are ioyned together you will say the Councels determination is vncerteine except it be coÌ„firmed by the Pope But if the Pope also may erre how is it made certein by his confirmation Another wil say the Popes determination is vncerteine except the general councel giue consent approbation therto But if the general councel may err what certeintie is in the approbatioÌ„ therof So the doubt is as great as it was before wher Brist affirmeth that no man wil bind vs to beliue the determinatioÌ„s of any Councel that are not certeinly coÌ„firmed by the Pope he sayeth more then he is able to warrant for beside that D. Cole in his answere to the Bishop of Sarum manifestly defendeth the authoritie of the councels against the Pope many popish diuines were and are of that opinion that the Pope may erre and is vnder the authoritie of the councell But where I shewe a manifest errour in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and approuing one of another of the Pope and the councell Bristowe sayeth the matter is not so vncerteine amongest them as I make it For first he graunteth that the councell of Ferrara and Florence determined that the Pope was aboue the councell and that the councell might erre and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same iudgement He graunteth also that the councels of Constance and Basil determined the contradictorie namely that the councell was aboue the Pope and that the Pope may erre But where I sayde that Martinus quintus chosen Pope by the councell of Constance was of the same iudgement there he cryeth hoe you proue not that nor neuer shall proue No shal Maister Bristow why sir is it like that the councell which had deposed three Popes would choose a fourth man Pope that was of a contrary iudgement vnto them Yea how coulde he accept the Papacie beeing not voide if the councell had not authoritie to depose the Pope whosoeuer hee was of the three that was the right Pope But seeing Iohn the 23. was of the Emperour and the councell accounted the right Pope who also before his deposition affirmed that the councell of Constance was a most holy councell and could not erre it is manifest that this Martyn beeing a Cardinall consented to the deposition of Iohn the 23. session 12. therefore he was of the same iudgement that the councell was But if you would saye that as soone as he was made Pope the spirite of Peter comming vpon him he was soudenly changed into a contrary iudgement his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you where you saye that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassadour he confirmed 〈…〉 ose determinations alone of the councel of ConstaÌ„ce which were 〈…〉 ainst the errours of Wickeliefe Hus and Hierom of Prage 〈…〉 or he did so generally confirme all decrees of that 〈…〉 uncell that he commaunded it to be enquired of persons suspected in articles as followeth Item vtrum credat teneat asserat quòd quodlibet concilium generale 〈…〉 am Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item whether he beleeue holde and affirme that euery generall councell and namely the councell of Constance doeth represent the vniuersall churche If Martyn the 5. would haue euery man to beleeue that the councell of Constance representeth the vniuersall church he would also haue them beleeue that the councell of Constance cannot erre which councel condemned the Pope of heresie and deposed him of his Papacye Again another Article Item vtrum credat quòd illud quod sacrum concilium Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentans 〈…〉 probauit approbat in fauor em fidei ad salutem anima 〈…〉 m quod hoc est ab vniuersis Christi fidelibus approbandum 〈…〉 endum Et quid condemnauit condemnat esse fidei vel 〈…〉 nis moribus contrarium hoc ab iisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Also whether hee beleeueth that that which the holy councell of Constance representing the vniuersall Church hath approued and doth approue in fauour of the faith to the health of mens soules that the same is of all faithfull Christians to be approued and holden And that which it hath condemned and doth condemne to be contrary to faith or good manners that the same is of them to be holden beleeued and affirmed as a thing condemned But the councell of Constance approued this assertion that the councell cannot erre and that the councell is aboue the Pope to condemne him of error which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith the health of mens soules therefore Pope Martyn the 5. was of the iudgement of the councell of Constance Finally in the end of the councell of Constance the approbation of Pope Martyn is recorded of all things decreede â—nd determined in matters of faith Among which wee must needes account this question of the Popes erring and the councels not erring which is accompted so
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
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
â—ontrarie to mine owne rule Bristow saith I conclude â—egatiuely out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth â—one other comfort to moderate the mourning of the faithfull but onely the quiet rest of them that are asleepe in the Lord and the hope of their glorious resurrecâ—ion ergo there is no comfort in praying for their soules 〈◊〉 aunswere mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen which citeth that place to prooue that as immoderate mourning is against the hope of the resurrectioÌ„ so being ioyned with praiers and almes it hath the liuely hope of life in those that sleepe in peace This aduantage Bristowe hath by rending and tearing mine argumentes from the bodie of my booke that it cannot bee perceiued vppon what ground I vse them Neuerthelesse hauing often before in that aunswere to Allen protested that hee coulde bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the deade this argument is to be referred to the same conclusion after this manner If in most conuenient place the holy ghost â—oyne not prayer and almes to moderate mourning for the departed then doeth he ioyne them in no place but in most coÌ„uenient place he ioineth not ergo in no place The maior is prooued by the wisedome of Gods spirit which alwayes choseth that which is most conuenient the minor is manifest and granted ergo the conclusion is true But Bristowe asketh me if I preaching to moderate the mourning of the faithfull vse none other comfort then these two I answere him concerning the state of the departed I vse none other proper places of coÌ„fort but these two the hope of their glorious resurrection their quiet rest in the meane time But S. Paul saith Bristowe speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death although he name them that are asleepe in the Lorde If they sleepe in the Lord they are not onely at rest but in happinesse Can you interprete to sleepe in the Lord to be in hellish torments such as you faine your purgatorie paines to be Are they not blessed which die in the Lord The Prophet Esay saith cap. 57. of the righteous after their death that there shal be peace they shall rest in their beddes Ergo they that sleepe in the Lord enioy a quiet rest The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul reherseth what he receiued and deliuered concerning the sacrament but oblation for the dead he rehearseth noâ— ergo he neither receiued nor deliuered it So you make sayth Bristowe as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he sayeth afterwarde of setting other things in order I answere that obiection is auoided in the same place immediatly after Pur. 362. therefore I will not here repete the answere And that it is not of one place negatiuely you your selfe here confesse that I denye it to be written by any of the Euangelistes which entreat of the sacrament But you are not ashamed to affirme that the Apostle intended no more in that place but to correct the sinne of vnworthie receiuing vppon coulot of a place of Augustine Ep. ad Ian. 118. Cap. 3. Inde enim For that respect the Apostle also sayeth that they receiue it vnworthily who do not by a reuerence singularly dewe discerne it from other meates as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently considered Doth Augustine say or can any man proue out of his saying that he ment that S. Paul intended no more but to correct the sinne of the vnworthie receiuing But admitt it were so how could he better correct that sinne then by shewing the whole institution substantiall matter and fourme ende and vse of that sacrament and so he doth although ceremonies and externall obseruations about it he doth not expresse The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer 19. which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diuerse other ordinances concerning the dead in which was no sacrifice or prayer for the dead was offred but that they were so separated from the liuing that the priestes might haue nothing to do with them but in speciall cases Bristowe sayeth I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buryed In â—eede so to conclude were to conclude of one place â—egatiuely but I presuppose my former assertion that â—n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead no not in those which conteine â—peciall order for the dead I adde further that the â—riest to whoÌ„ specially offering of sacrifice perteineth â—s so separated from the dead that he is forbidden to â—ourne for them much more to offer sacrifice for theÌ„ â—r to pray for them which can not be without lamenâ—ation for their miserable estate c. From these particular places I come to the whole â—awe and conclude negatiuely thus All lawfull sacriâ—ices were prescribed by the lawe Sacrifice for the dead â—as not prescribed by the lawe therfore it was no lawâ—ull sacrifice The answere he sayth is by returning it â—ppon my selfe but in deede hee maketh it by denying â—he minor affirming that sacrifice for the dead was preâ—cribed vnder the name of sacrifice for sinne I might â—ere reply out of your owne doctrine that not the â—uiltinesse but the paine of sinne is in many to be purâ—ed which haue obteyned remission of all their sinnes â—ither by Popes pardon or priestes absolution or by â—ods forgiuenesse vnto the penitent But I will folâ—owe the argument I shewed that the forme of sacrifice â—as such as could not be offered but of the liuing or â—or the liuing because they are commaunded in all saâ—rifice for sinne generally to lay their hand vppon the head of the beast to be sacrificed Hereunto Bristowe replyeth that this grosse absurditie would follow that â—acrifice for sinne could not be offered but of theÌ„ that were present therefore not for the children the sicke â—or captiues for kings and cities of the world vncircumâ—ised and diuerse other sortes I reioygne that no sacriâ—ices for sinne but sacrifices of thanksgiuing or prospeâ—ities coulde be offred for the absent and especially for the vncircumcised which could not haue remission of sinnes before they were ingraffed into the people of God but temporall benefites at the prayers of Gods people they might obteine As for children sicke captiues c. they might haue remission of sinnes without sacrifice which was but the Sacrament thereof as well in their childhoode sickenesse captiuitie when they coulde not offer according to the lawe as in time of desolation and destruction of the Temple when no sacrifice for sinne coulde be offered by any or for any but onely in the place where the tabernacle or temple was Wherefore the sacrifice of Iudas Machabaeus wheresoeuer hee learned it hath no warrant iâ— the law The fourth argumeÌ„t of the whole scripture negatiuely to conclude I saide it is good logike after this manner
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
the canonical scriptures as a Councell prouinciall Bristowe sayth it was by my confession confirmed in the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople in Trullo therfore it hath the authoritie of the whole true church But I tooke no exception to the generalitie therof But let it be as generall as you will both that and the Councel in Trullo erred by your owne iudgement seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authoritie of the Romane prelate euen by name as Gratian witnesseth Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretike Art 16. 17. Beside this I alledge that this Councel of Carthage 3. among Canonicall Scriptures nameth fiue bookes of Salomon whereas the church alloweth but three Bristowe answereth out of Augustine which hee saith was one of the Councell that the booke of wisedome and Ecclesiasticus of a certeine similitude were called Salomons bookes whereas they were written by Iesus the sonn of Syrach although the former he retract in rest li. 2. Ca. 4. I aske no better to proue the errour of the Councell but that they named fiue of Salomon for three Secondly it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Councell that although they called these books canonical yet they meant them not to be of equall authoritie with the rest of the scriptures Aug. cōtra Gaudent lib. 2. Ca. 23. And this scripture of the Machabees the Iewes count not as the Lawe the Prophets the Psalmes to whome our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses saying it behoueth that all things should be fulfilled that are writtē of me in the law in that Prophets in the Psalms But it is receiued of the church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read heard Bristowe saith I ascribe vnto S. Augustine that which he reporteth of the Iewes when I say that he alloweth them not in full authoritie with the law the Prophets the Psalmes fraudulently omitting that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentēce that our Sauiour Christ appealeth to these onely witnesses namely the law the Prophets the Psalmes so the Iewes by ancient tradition diuide all the canonical bookes into these three orders Secondly where I note that Augustine alloweth not these bookes wtout condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Brist saith that all Catholikes S. Peter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole scriptures as S. Augustine doth in the Donatistes which defended the murthering of thēselues by example of Rasis out of the Machabees Wherunto I reply that although sobrietie be required in al readers of the holy scripture other writings also yet it is not required as a condition making the scriptures to be profitably receiued of the church if they be soberly read for howsoeuer the canonicall scriptures be read by whomsoeuer although he be mad drunk that readeth or heareth them yet are they not only profitably but also necessarily receiued of the church but this scripture of the Machabes saith Augustin it is receiued not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard Who seeth not a gret difference between this scripture receiued vnder condition the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him selfe But Augustine saith Brist the Councel call these canonical de doct Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine nameth al that by any church are counted canonical confessing in a maner as Bristow granteth that they were not all generally receiued of the whole church therfore instructeth the studēt of diuinitie to prefer some before others The reasons that I brought to proue this booke not to be canonical are these first because the author cōmendeth Rasis for killing himself which is contrary to Gods commaundment Bristow answereth out of Augustine that the scripture hath only told it not cōmended it But the place is manifest 2. Mach. 14. that the author of the booke doth not only report his murthering of him self but also doth highly cōmend his manfulnes therin willing saith he rather to dye valiantly than to giue him selfe into the hands of wicked men to suffer reproch vnworthie for his noble stock so forth to the ende of the Chapter Secondly I said that writer abridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other mens writings Bristowe sayth the booke of Kings in many places abridgeth stories telling where they be written in other bookes that are not canonicall To this I answere the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirite of man but for ciuile affaires sendeth the reader to other writers seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them Furthermore he sayeth S. Marke is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthewe I aunswere not so cōmonly as falsly for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Mathewe and something he vtterly omitteth which is not the office of a true abridger And albeit that he did it were no answere to mine obiection that because the spirite of God telleth shortly that which he himself had told at large as in the Actes the sermons of the Apostles he is an abridger of Chronicles written by prophane men The citing of the saying of Poets Act. 17. Tit. 1. proueth not that the holy ghost intending to write an historie of the church vseth the labour of the prophane man Iason the Cyrenian I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their owne receiued witnesses another thing to bring fiue bookes of an historie into one Thirdly I sayd the author of that booke confesseth that he toke that matter in hand that men might haue pleasure in it which could not away with the long tedious stories of Iason But the spirit of God serueth not such vaine delightes of men Brist asketh if profitable breuitie be a vaine delight but I speake not of the breuitie but the cause why he affected breuitie namely that men might haue pleasure in his worke Fourthly I said the author sheweth what labor sweat it was to him to make this abridgement ambitiously cōmendeth his trauell sheweth the difference between a storie at large an abridgement all which things sauour nothing of Gods spirit Also he confesseth his infirmitie and desireth pardon if he haue spoken slenderly and barely whereby hee testifieth sufficiently that he was no scribe of the holy ghost Bristow saith that he ambitiously commendeth his trauel is but my blasphemy all the rest standeth well ynough with the assistance of the holy ghost Concerning his ambitious cōmendation of his trauel where to serueth his great cōplaint of the great labour sweat watching the it cost him the wise similitude that he taketh of him that maketh a feast seeketh other mens commoditie hath no smal sauor so we also for many mens sake saith he are very well content to vndertake this great labour A great labour I promise you
and to great profite of many Likewise in the ende a passing good similitude of wine to finishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone and then againe water and as wine tempered with water is pleasant and delighteth the taste so the setting out of the matter deliteth the eares of them that reade the storie But to the rest Bristowe asketh if the scribes of the holy ghost must bee alwayes eloquent or able to doe all without sweat or labour I aunswere as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them so they neuer complain for the lack of it but spirituall vtterance they haue abundantly and that without sweat and watching whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them Neither doth S. Paul confesse that he lacketh vtterance when he said he was rude in speaking 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apostles did obiect against him for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence that he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans as Bristowe saith blasphemously but sheweth that he was bold vpō his office because he was the minister of Christ vnto the gentils Ro. 15 That he vsed the hand of Tertius in writing that Epistle or any other it was not to auoid the labor of endi ting Finally that he vsed intollerable paines in preaching It proueth not that it cost him great labor trauel in studying what to write or preach either which the spirit of God did minister vnto him plentifully But neuer doth he craue pardon as one vncerteine whether he haue don well or no as the writer of the Machabees doth confessing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could and in the beginning leauing to the author the exact diligēce of euery particular so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth which are refelled both by the former book of Machabees and by Iosephus Where Allen alleged the authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby for in S. Ieroms works none such is found now commeth Bristow telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees in the vulgar latine Bybles taken out of the sēse of Ierom as diuers of those prefaces be and that wil appeare by these two places which I cite out o◠him to proue that booke not canonicall The former is in his preface vpon the book of kings where rehersing the names of the canonical books he omitteth this and after saith expresly it is not in the Canon Bristow aunswereth it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes As though the church of God since Christ shoulde haue more bookes of the olde testament in the canon then the church of the Hebrews had Ierom saith that this preface of his may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin v◠scire valeamus quicquid extrahos est inter Apocripha esse ponendū That we may be able to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be placed among the apocriphall writings So that Ierom speaketh expresly that not onely among the Iewes but among Christians also these al other books without the canon are to be taken for apocriphall The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs that they were neither in the Churches canon Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudeth Tobias Machabees but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia she may reade to the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of the churches doctrin To wit saith Bristow against the Iewes as though the Churches doctrin is not to be cōfirmed against heretikes and euen to the Catholiks themselues by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall after a sort it was of me confessed and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth de praed sanct de ciuit Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. But Ierom is also cited in his preface vpon the booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice if that were so what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees But in deede it is not so for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith the words are these With the Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among the hagiographaor books called holy writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things that come in controuersie is iudged lesse conuenient yet being written in the Chaldee tongue it is counted among the stories But because the Synod of Nice is redde to haue accounted it in the number of holy scriptures I haue yelded to your request c. First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa which is false as Hierom affirmeth Prolog Gal. in lib. reg Secondly as Erasmus hath noted he affirmeth not that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell but saith it is read to haue accounted perhaps in some such writer as coyned the canon sent vnto the Aphrican councell Thirdly if we shall vnderstand Hagiographa heere as Bristowe woulde haue them not for those nine that be canonicall but others that be Apocriphal yet holy writings why shoulde we not likewise say that the computatiō of the Nicen councel was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings and not among the canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before in saying that Ierom doth simply refuse the books of the Machabees saith the church receiueth thē not for canonicall euen that which Bristow saith I should haue shewed that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue them that we might be able to know saith he speaking I dare say of himselfe all other members of the Church that whatsoeuer books are without the Canō of the Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames but Eusebiu before them saith plainly it is a counterfait protesting that I speake it not to excuse them that doubt of it Bristo◠is not content except I woulde condemne thē for heretikes which afterwarde reuersed their error especially Luther Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite when he saith the cleane contrary and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius I know not out of whose translation But the words of Eusebius are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit 2 About onely scripture I said Cyprian
not that I thinke all learning or all learning needefull for that purpose to be knowledge of the tongues and rationall sciences much lesse to be the onely knowledge of the tongues as this proude Asse ignorant in the tongues and almost in all good learning without all foreheade or with an yron or brasen face doeth lewdly belie me But if any man thinke saith Bristowe that one may argue of that Chapiter a simili Let him consider first that so the manner of simple Catholikes who praie to them selues priuately in the Latine tongue which they vnderstande not is not condemned but iustified A harde matter to iustifie superstitious ignoraunce by similitude of the heauenly giftes of Gods spirite which is the spirite of trueth and knowledge Yes saith Bristowe he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to men but to God Yea sir but doth he say he that speaketh in a tongue which he vnderstandeth not him selfe Againe the Apostle saith he that speaketh in a tongue doeth edifie him selfe Verily he that speaketh in a tongue which he vnderstandeth no more then a Parot edifieth not him selfe nor any other Againe he saith if I pray in a tongue my spirite praieth but my vnderstanding or minde is vnfruitfull which wordes Bristowe hath impudently falsified saying For if I praie in a tongue my spirite or affection praieth though my vnderstanding be without fruite Where not onely hee taketh spirite for a blinde affection which is meant of a spirituall gift but also would beare vs in hande that Saint Paule iustified praier with affection voide of vnderstanding where it followeth immediatly that he will him selfe and exhorte all other to pray not onely in spirit or spirituall gift but also with mind or vnderstanding which shall be fruitfull vnto other But he saith further as Bristow maketh him to say If thou blesse or giue thanks in spirit thou doest it well Where neither his wordes nor meaning is such but speaketh of them which vse that spirituall gift of tongues to expresse godlie praier or thankesgiuing which serue not to edifie the congregation but doth not iustifie that what so euer a man shall speake in praier or thankesgiuing with affection is well spoken although the speaker vnderstand not what he say For howe can he blesse or giue thankes well that knoweth not whether he blesse or cursse in the wordes which he vttereth with neuer so good affection Lastly hee citeth out of Saint Paule If there bee no interpreter let him be silent in the Church and speake to him selfe and to GOD. And hereof Bristowe will-conclude that mother B. is iustified to say her Aui Mari Daminus stickum c. As though he that spake in such a tongue as no man present could interprete and he him selfe that spake it did not vnderstand what he spake but spake meerely in the aire The second thing that Bristowe would haue to be considered is that the Church in her publike prayers doth not speake in a tongue because the Latine tongue is not in England a straunge tongue so as it were if one should say Masse at Rome in the English tongue And whie so I pray thee Bristowe Because in England heere and there one vnderstandeth the Latine tongue Verily in Rome there be some also that vnderstand the English tongue Thinke you Bristowe could haue this consideration without his considering cap and therevpon concludeth And so the question is not nowe the same as was betweene the Apostle and the Corinthians But whereas the Church would doe all thinges for edification the question is whether this be obtained in the publike prayers of the whole world rather by the Latine tongue that is to say by the common tongue or else by the seuerall tongues that is to say by the priuate tongues Whie howe nowe Bristowe is the Latine tongue the common tongue of the whole worlde You that haue all learning beside the tongues will you denie all other tongues to be common but the Latine But to let that passe the Catholikes haue one aunswere to this question drawing all â—o common or vnitie with a little helpe you may by the same corde drawe in the communitie and vnitie of Plato and the Anabaptistes but in the meane while your edification is voide of instruction But that is a small matter with you to driue all men into a common heape of ignorance and superstition which is your drawing all to common or vnitie But to come to examples of the primitiue Church he saith I can not denie but that all nations of the Latine Church had the seruice in Latine I say all nations that vnderstoode the Latine tongue as their vulgar speach but not all nations of the West which vnderstoode it not That most nations vnderstoode the Latine tongue which he calleth an absurde position he saith I proue it by the Germane or French Councels of Toures Magunce and Rhemes by which I rather shewe the decaie of the Latine tongue in those regions But my proues are other then he is able to aunswere and therefore he letteth them passe cauelling that the Latine tongue was hard vnto the people where I shewe the decaie of it As also that the French tongue at this day is in some places called the Romane where I shewe the continuaunce of the rusticall Romane tongue in Fraunce out of the Councel of Turon 3. cap. 17. as though the French tongue at this day were not much declined from the similitude which it had with the pure Latine tongue seuen or eight hundreth yeares agoe To the decree of the Councel of Laterane cap. 9. which commaunded that Ministers should be prouided which according to the diuersitie of rites and languages should celebrate diuine seruice and minister the sacraments to people of diuers languages being conuersant in one citie Bristowe aunswereth the Bishoppes were not commaunded to translate the seruice into English and other vulgar tongues but to prouide Ministers according to the rites and languages in which the seruice presently was Yes sir they were commaunded to prouide Ministers to serue them according to the diuersitie of languages that were in euerie citie where were people of diuers tongues But otherwise Bristowe asketh me whie it prouideth for those cities and diocesses in which were people of diuers languages and not for all in generall I aunswere the prouision is generall according to the diuersitie of languages in any citie or diocesse Last of all he asketh whie suche translation was in no place put in execution But first I must aske him howe he proueth that in no place it was put in execution And although it were not it declareth the negligence of the Bishops not the vnderstanding of the Canon In the foure and twentie Demaund of Priesthoode and sacrifice he chargeth vs with apostasie for translation of the Priesthoode whereof must followe a translation of the lawe Which apostasie falleth right vpon the Papistes which translated the Priesthoode of Christ which he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
are sanctified you are iustified by the name of our Lord Iesus and by the spirit of our God By which he plainely sheweth that although they were baptized long before and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme yet the cleannesse of their washing the holinesse of their sanctification the righteousnesse of their iustification they retained still and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end So that while Bristowe as he doth alwaies chargeth me with ignorance not knowing what is meant by their making perfect he incurreth great forgetfulnesse euen of the Apostles words where he expouÌ„deth which are not onely he hath made perfect but he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme which no logike can proue yet it followeth that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme are made perfect not for a moment as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach from which perfection they fall immediatlie and must recouer it by masses and as Bristowe saith by penance c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered hath made perfect for euer all those that are sanctified That the purpose of the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth let him beleeue that can thinke the greatest part of his disputation for the abolishing of all ceremonies and sacrifices of the lawe to be idle and beside his purpose Likewise that if they fall he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme but remedie he telleth them none Verily there is no remedie for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vnto themseues by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite that he telleth no remedie by repentance from particular faulles and daylie offences when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ Hebrews 10. verse 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance verse 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vs to repentance Verses 5. 6. 7. c. But I shewe great ignorance where I conclude that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse No but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer from the onely once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to haue many ministers and many ministeries as it were conduites to deriue his purchase his redemption to his people In deede if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vnto all his elect he had neede of many conduites such as you speake of for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man but the vertue of the Holie Ghost The ministerie of man is such as man can execute that is by the worde audible and visible to speake to the eares and eyes of men and beeing â—â—iâ—red vp by the holy spirite to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God But you thinke to auoyde exclamation if you ascribe nothing to any man nor any thing but from that Priest and from that sacrifice as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice and bestowe it vpon any man or thing without commission yea against commaundement and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice which being once offered neede noe more to be repeated The scriptures thus examined he commeth to the doctors And first to Augustine or rather Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. 292. to proue that the olde doctors vsinge the name of sacrifice ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ because he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and wine Bristowe replieth that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body bloode of Christ wherein as it is cited by him so is it answered by me cap. 6. of this booke Secondly where he saith In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing commemoration c. Bristow replieth that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euideÌ„tly shewed what is giuen for vs he is announced alreadie killed But because this is nothing to the purpose he compareth it to the martyrdomes of Peter Paule commemorated vpon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades there seene and visited A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome so many Churches of Peter and Paule as haue presently or haue had in times past reliques of their bones were greatly deceiued For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome his nether iawe with his bearde is at Poyters and many of both their bones at Triers Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua where it was tried to be a good pumice stone The second doctor is August de ciui dei lib. 22. cap. 10. saying the martyrs are that body which is offered in sacrifice whereof I conclude that it is not the naturall body of Christ but his mysticall body which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Bristowe answereth that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natuâ—ll body But Augustine neuer saith that the naturall body of Christ is offered but expressing what body is offered sheweth that the mysticall body is offered Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body in offering whereof for his Church he offered his Church to God with it But how proueth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church which before he had purged by his sacrifice he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vnto God The third doctor is Tertullian which saith that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded Bristow saith That in the name of that prayer he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vnto vs after the gospell Dominus vobiscuÌ„ oremus let vs pray immediatly goeth to the bread and wine c. You may thinke I iest they be the very words of Bristow and his onely answere Yea but there be reasons of this saying Because that pure
Ioan. Waldo who separated them by his doctrine and example from the whore of Babilon in Calabria Mora 〈…〉 Fraunce Where haue beene whole ciâ—ties or townes of theÌ„ as Merundal Cabriers c. Wherefore it is an impudent assertion of Saunder to say they were friers c. In the 41. demaunde of studying all truth Bristowe affirmeth that with friers and other catholikes all leaâ—ning had beene packed away if the princes had not erected a fewe petite schooles so he calleth not onelie great colleges but also whole Vniuersities lately erected But is there any man so ignorant of the time of suppression of Abbies that he would thinke all learning was in friers and other papistes Where I say there was neuer greater store of learning in any age then is now in protestantes bristow maketh me still a childe in the grammer schoole which thinketh no man can be better learned then his maister saying We that knowe your and the Catholike schooles can but laugh at your childishnes Why Bristowe doth no man know the learning of popish vniuersities but you I haue seene and heard somthing in the most famous vniuersitie in Europe and yet I sawe nothing that Cambridge and Oxford may not be bould to compare with it except it be in multitude of studentes Where I speake of the tongues and rationall sciences Bristowe is boulde to affirme There are more declamations in Greeke in one common schoole of the Iesuites then in both your vniuersities I dare say being ioyned together What dare you not say that haue determined to supply in bragging that you Iacke in learning if you had named the number we must perhaps haue yealded to you if happilie our number of Greeke declamations be not so great as yours But to giue you an estimation by that I knowe of one and one of the lesser sort of colledges in Cambridg for the number of Greeke declamations there are a dosen poore schollers of newe erection since her Maiesties reigne which are bounde to declaime in greeke euerie Terme beside their weekely exercise of versifying in greek and latin and their competent knowledg in the hebrewe tonge required in them by their foundation before they can be elected to those places By which you may gesse that the knoweledge of the laerned tounges are not so daintie in our vniuersities as you thinke Yea he dare say they haue better masters of art of two or three teaching through out all Logike and Phylosophie then with vs in seuen yeares This childishe bragge whereof there is no triall commeth of the spirite of pride wherewith Sathan puffeth vp the Papistes that although in the multitude they be farre inferiour to the professors of the truth in any kinde of good learning and for the best of them nothing superior yet euerie one of meanest knowledg among whom I take Bristowe for one so swelleth in opinion of his learning that he contemneth euen them whose skill he neuer assayed But their masters of Hebrewe Greeke Latine Poetrie Logike Philosophie doe not count themselues learned in diuinitie which they neuer studied or better learned in it then the professors of it lacking the tounges or eloquence as Saint Thomas Aquinas Saint Augustine the Apostles And what I pray you doe masters of other sciences among vs challenge the knowledge of diuinitie which they neuer studied or thinke themselues better learned in it then the professors of it But wherefore ioyne you to Thomas Aquinas who in deede lacketh both tounges eloqueÌ„ce S. Augustine who was a master of eloqueÌ„ce and not ignorant in tongues especially the Apostles which were indued with heauenly eloquince and knowledge of all tongues But it is rudenes and barbarousnes saith Bristow in our countrie to thinke ae meere grammer schoolemaster sufficient to be doctor of diuinitie yea and a Bishop also not for other qualiâ—â—es but euen for diuinitie I caÌ„not denie but it were rudenes and barbarousnes so to thinke But I vtterly deny that any meere graÌ„mer schoolemaster in our couÌ„trie is so preferred as you most slauÌ„deiously aff 〈…〉 me For the person whom you pricke at is well knowne to be excelleÌ„tly wel learned in diuinitie so to haue been many yeareâ— before his prefermeÌ„t as his learned labors euen against poperie are in handes of men to testifie But seeing you make it so strange a matter for a man to be called from a grammer scholemaster to be a doctor in diuinitie It seemeth you haue not obserued for I know you haue read all thinges what Eusebius writeth of Origenes who being a teacher of Philosophie Geometrie Arithmetike other liberall artes for his knowledg in diuinitie was made a doctor of the Church And why might not this our Bishop be taken out of the grammer schoole as well as your White in Queene Maries time Is the same matter that was wisedome in you become barbarousnes in vs But regnum grammaâ—icoruÌ„ is post date all are not children as they were when this geare beganne your tonges will not now serue no nor your studie of diuiniâ—ie in Caluines schooles come once to the Catholiques schooles saith Bristowe and you will be ashamed of your selfe as many a one is that â—hought himselfe at home and was thought of others a iolâ—ie fellowe No no master Bristow for I must requite your curtesie seeing once in your life you call me master Pulke we neede not come to your popish schooles to see your learning you bewray it sufficiently by your publike writings And as for the kingdome of gramarians I marueile whie you scorne vs with it as though we had not atteined to the kingdome of any other science or learning But although we list not to make such large brags of our learning as you doe I for my part would be ashamed if there were any knowledg that in any age was counted good learning wherein our side should not be found as forward in England as any Papist in the world As for the slaunderous and witlesse railings of the heretike Stancarus preferring the Maister of the sentence before so many Luthers Melancthons Caluines c. we esteeme as much as the barking of a dogge against the the Moone Would God we might all meete in some Vniuersitie where better triall might appeare of both our knowledges then wise men may gather by our boasting In the three and fourtie Demand of succession where I saide there is no such succession of persons and places promised as the Papistes boast of Bristowe saith the saying of the Apostle Ephes. 4. promiseth a continuance of Pastors and Doctors vnto the end which I confesse but yet is not the orderly succession of persons and places thereby proued there shall alway be Pastors and teachers in the Church but it followeth not that they shall continue in succession of the same roomes in the same places as the Papistes boast of the succession of Popes That he defendeth the offices of Apostles Prophetes and Euangelistes to continue alwayes in the Church by
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
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
of Christ which he eateth not Verie well For he which abuseth the Kings seale is guiltie of the kings Maiestie which he acknowledgeth not But this argument out of Saint Paul hee referreth vnto another time returning againe to Iudas That thinge whereof Christ saide to the twelue Take eate and drinke was taken eaten and dronken of all the twelue and was but one thing onely concerning eating and drinking that is his body and bloud therefore Iudas did eat the same that Peter Iames and Iohn did Wee heard in the last Chapiter of the first booke that it consisted of two things by the iudgement of Irenaeus an earthly sub stance and an heauenly the one all receiued the other onely the faithfull therefore the antecedent of this argument is false But if that argument be not plaine ynough wee must take another Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing Eche of them that foode whereof Christe sayde this is my body but Iohn did truely eate Christes bodie ergo Iudas did truely eate Christes body I aunswere the maior is ambiguous for if one foode bee taken for one breade it is true but if one thing bee taken for the bodye of Christ it is the matter in controuersie and denyed of vs. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous For if ye vnderstande eating of Christs bodie truly eating by faith spiritually it is true and as the Apologie meaneth if you vnderstande eating Christes bodie carnallie it is false and denyed of the Apologie that Iohn did so eate the bodie of Christ. The argument is no better then this Iudas and Iohn did heare one Gospel each of them that whereof it is saide that it is the power of God to saluation But Iohn did heare the Gospel to his saluation ergo Iudas did heare the Gospel to his saluation But Sander cauelleth of deliuering of bakers breade and nothing else but Bakers breade Christ offereth two thinges earthly breade and his diuine bodie Nowe if Iudas receiue the one and refuse the other what folly is it to reason of Christes deliuering which is like as if a man will deliuer an obligation as his deede and the partie that shoulde receiue it will not receiue it but as a scrolle and so renteth it in peeces In deede therefore Christ offereth his bodie to all men but they onely receiue it which beleeue But eating by faith saith Sander is a preparation to worthie eating but the meate is all one euen as the baptisme is all one to the wicked and to the godly I will aske no better example then of the Sacrament of Baptisme where indeede the water which is the outwarde element is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed as the breade is to all that eate but regeneration the thing signified by the water is proper onely to the electe of GOD Euen so the bodie of Christ which is the thing signified by the breade is not receiued but of them which beleeue vnto eternall life CAP. III. The ancient fathers teach that euill men receiue truely the bodie of Christ. The first father cited is Origen in Psalme 37. who â—aith that those which come to the Eucharistie without examining and clensing themselues are like to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meats of whole men do hurt themselues Whereupon Sander gathereth that the meat of the supper which is prouided for whole men is truly but not profitably eaten of the wicked But that Origen was of no such iudgment it is manifest by his expresse wordes spoken of the eating of the sacrament of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porrò de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus quem qui comederit omninò viuet in aeternuâ— quem nullus mallus potest edere Etenim si fieri possit vt qui malus adâ—â—c perseueret edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viâ—â—s nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vinet in aeternum And these things truly are spoken of the figuratiue or symbolical body Many thinges also may be spoken of the worde himselfe which was made fleshe and very meate which whosoeuer shall eate vndoutedly he shall liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it were possible that he which continueth still euill should eate the worde which is made flesh seing he is the word and the bread of life it had not beene written Whosoeuer shal eate this bread shall liue for euer The second father is Basil de baptismo lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Asking what shall a man say of him who dareth in vaine and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ To this I answere that Basil speaketh not of wicked men but of the faithfull in whome the spirit of God was and yet a great worke of mortification therefore it followeth after the wordes cited by Sander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore much more giuing the holye spirite They are not wicked in whome the holy spirit is Therefore the Aduerbes Idely and vnprofitably are not spoken simplie but comparatiuely for not so diligently as they ought not so profitably as they might The thirde father is Cypriane de Coen Domini The sacraments for their part cannot bee without their proper vertue neither doth Gods maiesty by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But albeit the sacraments permit themselues to be taken or touched of vnworthie men yet those men cannot bee partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse withstandeth such holinesse This authoritie is flatte against Sander the wicked may receiue the Sacramentes but not the spirite of Christ if not the spirite then not the bodie for Christ his bodie is neuer disseuered from his spirite The fourth father is Hierome but where hee sheweth not Opponis mihi c. Thou layest vnto mee the one measure of Manna called Gomor and wee take the bodie of Christe equallie According to the merites of them that receiue that which is one is made diuerse c. The Sacrament is one in it selfe c. There is no question but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament which is called the bodie of Christe but of the bodie of Christ in deede they are not partakers For it cannot bee truely saide of the naturall bodie of Christ that it is made diuerse but the Sacrament which is called his bodie is made diuerse according to the faith or infidelitie of him that receiueth it Augustine is the fifte witnesse In Epist. 162. Tolerat c. Our Lorde him selfe beareth with Iudas hee suffereth a deuill a thieefe and the seller of himselfe to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Nothing is our price saieth Sander but the bodie of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament bee called
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
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
and not the verie image of things applying the shadowe to the Lawe the image to the gospel and the things themselues to the life to come In which application he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel but an image of things and not the thinges themselues and thereby in deede denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vs but an image thereof For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes that we haue the verie flesh of Christ vnder the image o◠forme of bread the Apostle saying we haue the image of things which image if it be none other but the accidents of breade wee haue no great prerogatiue aboue the Law In deede the Apostle meaneth that the same things which were but rudely shadowed as it wer with a cole to the fathers in the Law are in a liuely image described and set forth vnto vs in the Gospel For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come but possesseth them by faith Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander vppon this text Christ gaue vs his real flesh vnder the forme of breade or else he gaue not the thing it selfe and if hee gaue it without figure out state were not an image of the things themselues Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen but of the clearenes of the doctrine of those things which are promised and therefore he calleth them good things to come and Christ an high Priest of good things to come As madde yea and more frantike is that conclusion that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments except he gaue his flesh vnder the forme and figure of breade By which drunken conclusion it should follow that Christs mediation depended vpon the institution of the Sacrament which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to haue bene made complet in his death which was effectuall vnto all ages alike Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses because he hath not therein giuen vs his naturall flesh which is in heauen And last of all that Christ is not a mediator vnto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper but onely to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper Againe as vntrue it is that because Christ came to fulfill the Law therfore it was necessarie that he should giue his flesh vnder a figure which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnder the Lawe as though there were one meane of saluation for them and another for vs. The scripture doth often distinguish the Law and the Gospel shewing what is peculiar to either of them but it neuer affirmeth that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe were saued otherwise then by the Gospel that is by remission of sinnes through faith in the mercie of God reconciled to vs by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts to make a difference of the saluation of the persons Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined as Sander seemeth to say when Christ did institute his supper which hee called the new Testament but euen from the beginning of the world but yet to take effect vertue and strength by the death of Christ of which Testament the supper is a sacrament bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament as well when it is called the newe Testament as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept of not killing expounded by Christ to extend to anger proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees which expounded the precept onely of murthering with the hand For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth was lawfull before the time he made that exposition or that to commit adulterie in heart by lusting after a woman was not sinne before Christ did so interpret that commaundement If it were sinne then it was a breach of the Law if it were a breach of the Lawe it was of the Lawe that was giuen therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall and had that true meaning and was so taken of all good men before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses That all legall instruction and propheticall figures are transferred into the sacraments of Christ as Leo saith we agre We denie not that which Dionyse saieth although wee may not acknowledge him to haue beene S. Pauls scholler that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen spirituall contemplation and of the Lawe sensible signes Neither of both these autorities proue the matter in question As for the distinction of gifts whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe in the end of this chapter we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine But such distinction as was in deede betweene that which Moses gaue and God gaue we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine which sheweth y◠right difference betweene the auctor and the minister the signe the thing signified But that distinction betwene the gift which the Father gaue alwayes and that which the sonne promiseth to giue to be diuerse whē Sander cā proue we may be brought to acknowledge it In the meane time that promise of continuance of that gift in the Future temps which Christ hath alwayes giuen is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe we are not preferred before the lewes They did all eat the same spiritual meate c Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding euen such difference as is between the knowledge obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed and liuely set foorth in colours which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 10. CAP. XI The bread that Christ promiseth to giue which is his flesh must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh There is no doubt but Christ did giue the substance of his flesh which being crucified for vs is made the bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vs not after any corporall manner of eating but by faith in spirit not onely in the Sacrament of his supper but in baptisme also and without any sacrament But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued that Christ saying The breade which I will giue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil giue you at my last supper that I say I denie What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke let it bee examined with mine answere But admit he had spoken principally of his supper yet doeth it not followe which Sander doth inferre that he promised to giue his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
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
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
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
Christ left vs not the best token of remembrance of his death because he is not seene with the print of his wounds But we must esteeme the best remembrance according to his wisedome that hath ordained it who in all respects no doubt hath appoinâ—ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith Yet in Sanders example or any that hee can deuise a remembrance will alwayes differ from the thing remeÌ„bred as the scarie and the fighting are not all one so the remembrance of Christ crucified and Christ crucified himselfe are not all one Neither must Sander baffuâ— vs with the remembrance of an action onely for wee are to remember the person with his benifites in or for the remembrance of me saith Christ vntill he come saith Paul That a thing may be present which is not seene as to a blinde man Sander needed not to proue but that a thing may be both absent and present in the same substance visibly or inuisibly that is the matter which would require Sander to shewe his witte in giuing vs either a reason or an experience But the reall presence of Christ saith he causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification which as Basil affirmeth is a peece of the remembrance whereas in eating and drinking breade and wine Christe is so remembred that sinnes be neither confessed nor amendement minded nor faith exercised nor charitie vsed as nowe a daies in England it is handled by meanes of the newe preachers What fruitfull remembrance of Christes death the popish doctrine doth worke wee lament to see the remanents yet in diuerse places where the people are not taught that spend their time as they were wont to doe in poperie when they had receiued their maker as they were taught to speake Contrariwise where true doctrine and good discipline haue preuailed enuie her selfe may see examples sufficient to confute the shamelesse slaunders of Sander As for the glorious monument of the Masse which Sander describeth to shewe what remembrance of Christ is made therein he doeth well to compare it to a sepulchre which hath outwardly goodly painting carning but inwardly is ful of rotten bones corruptioÌ„ As good a shewing as that and better too may be made vpon a stage with puppets For what doctrine is there in the masse for the comfort of an afflicted conscience but dumbe shewes and idle ceremonies in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselues cannot agree in which if there were any profitable doctrine it were hidde from the people as it were with the grauestone of an vnknowen tongue But that which of all other is worst what remembrance of Christes death and sacrifice call you that which sacrilegiously challengeth vnto it selfe that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ But Sander hauing once entred into the allegorie of a sepulchre cannot so lightlie leaue it but teacheth that Christ hauing ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre woulde not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his bodie lying therein To this I answere that sepulchres are to laye in deade carcases but Christ is risen from death and ascended into heauen hauing left his sacraments as monuments of him that was deade but nowe liueth eternally not as graues wherein his deade bodie still shoulde remaine But Chrysostome is charged to call Christes bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase because it is present after the same rate as it was deade in the sepulchre not without life but without sensible mouing as Epiphanius hath noted I answere hee doth impudently charge Chrysostome to render that reason why hee calleth Christes bodie a carcase in 1. Corint Homil. 24. because hee is present without sensible moouing For there is no such thing in that homily although there bee some excessiue and hyperbolicall speaches as that Christ suffereth to bee broken in the Sacrament which was not broken on the crosse And euen as false it is that hee affirmeth of Epiphanius for hee saith not that Christ is without sensible moouing But speaking of the sacramentall bread Hoc â—st rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc hoc This thing is of rounde shape and insensible as concerning power And yet by grace he woulde say This is mine This and this Epiph. Ancor But there followeth a substantiall reason of the Martyrs which haue left their bodies behinde them for our comfort or else some thing equiualent as Manna â—n the tombe of Saint Iohn as the fable of Abdias sheweth Therefore Christ woulde not bee inferiour to them in leauing his bodie But Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is profitable for vs that hee departe from the worlde in his humanitie to prepare vs a place in heauen and to supplie his bodily presence most comfortablie with the presence of his holy spirite Ioan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for vs that Christ hath carried his bodie into heauen and placed vs in heauen with him Ephe. 2. sending vnto vs his holy spirite with all profitable graces from heauen Origen is cited Homi. 13 in Leuitic Si respicias c. If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lorde saide Doe this in the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely remembrance which may make GOD mercifull to men Marke saith Sander this propitiatorie kinde of remembrance Naye marke the treacherie of Sander that cutting off a sentence by the middle applyeth the conclusion to the latter parte onely which of the author is meant of the whole matter together For Origen shewing the insufficiencie of the shewebreade to make propitiation thus writeth Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem inuenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum Si redeâ—s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit dat huic mundo vitam illum panem propositionis quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus deum But if these thinges namely the ceremonie of the shewe breade bee referred to the greatnesse of the mysterie thou shalt finde that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen and giueth life to this worlde I say that shewebread which God hath set forth to be propitiation through faith in his bloode and if thou looke vnto that commemoration of which our Lorde saith doe this for the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely commemoration that maketh God mercifull to men Nowe marke this propitiatory kinde of remembrance and you shall finde it to bee neither the masse nor the communion but the ceremonie of shewebreade noâ— barely considered but with faith applied vnto Christe whom it
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
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
and thou standest by idle Thy garments are foule and thou carest not But if they are cleane then adore and receiue This adoration Sander would referre to the holy things but he cannot enforce it wee adore and communicate yet wee adore not the Sacrament Chrysostome in the same Homilie saith that we eate him which sitteth aboue which is worshipped of Angels c. by which it is euident that the presence of Christ in the mysteries is after a spirituall manner not that he is bodily present As for the eleuation and the things praised with an hymne that Dionysius speaketh although they prooue no adoration of the Sacrament yet I will not stande vpon them because it is cleare that Dionysius was a writer out of the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres that Sander hath bound himselfe vnto howsoeuer the Papistes impudently woulde affirme that he was Saint Paules scholler whose writinges were not heard of in the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite followeth Basil de spiritu sancto Cap 27. Inuocationis verba c. The words of inuocation vsed in the shewing of the breade of the Eucharistie and the cuppe of blessing which of the Saintes haue left in writing to vs In that place in deede Basil defendeth ceremonies receiued by tradition which are not contrarie to the worde of God among which he nameth the wordes of inuocation which wordes Sander will haue to be the order of saying Masse and prayers and yet after referreth to certeine wordes which the people aunswered when the Priest saide Holy thinges are for holy men One is holy saide they one is the Lorde one Iesus Christ in the glorie of GOD the father with the holy Ghost Amen But these are wordes of declaration who is holy not of inuocation Wherefore the wordes of inuocation were some prayer that was made for the worthie receiuing of the mysteries and not made to the mysteries as Sander imagineth And wheras vpon the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not onely grounde shewing of the mysteries readie to be receiued but also lifting vp of them it is a simple argument for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not so properly as he saith betoken a shewing by lifting vp as to ordeine to institute to appoint and so wee neede not vnderstand any shewing but an appointment or ordering of the bread and cuppe to be the Sacrament Passing ouer Maximus and Germanus two late writers concerning the shewing and eleuation of the mysteries vsed in their time I come to Eusebius Emissenus Hom. 5. in Pasc Cùm ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potúqâ— c. When thou commest vnto the reuerend altar to be refreshed with the wholesome meate and drinke Looke with faith vpon the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde take it in the hande of thy heart and especially receiue it with an inwarde swallowing This place being altogether of spirituall beholding honouring receiuing yet is not Sander ashamed to cite it for carnall presence and ad oration of the Sacrament But howe I pray you forsooth hee telleth vs where to haue it on the altar Naye sir faith respecteth not things that are visible therefore not the altar nor that is seene vpon it but him that is in heauen which is represented by that which is seene corporally Nowe seeing the beholding must bee with faith and the receiuing with the hande of the heart and inward swallowing who will graunt vnto Sander that the honouring must bee with outwarde reuerence to that which appeareth breade and wine but with inwarde and spirituall reuerence dewe to Christ which is in heauen But Sander hath a quarell against the English Homilies for translating altare the communion and salutari cibo potúqâ— spirituall meates I thinke the writer meant not to translate but to giue the sense but I know not what Sander meant in translating this place for that which Eusebius sayeth Cordis manususâ—ipe to giue none English at all but leaue it cleane out As for the saying of the receiuers Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe it hath beene shewed alreadie howe it was vnderstoode of Origen and may be saide of them that neuer meant to adore the Sacrament And whereas Sander sayeth none other Lorde entreth vnder the roofe of his mouth beside that breade I marueile whether he meane to teache vs that tectum is Latine for the roofe of a mans mouth whereas wee haue alwayes taken it for the roofe of an house Christe is sayde to enter vnder the roofe of our house figuratiuely when hee dwelleth in vs by faith spiritually As for eating vnder the roofe of our mouth it is a grosse imagination vnworthie of the maiestie of Christ. The last author is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mystag 5. who biddeth the communicants to take the king and the bodie of Christ in the hollow of the right hande saying Amen and to sanctifie their eyes therewith vsing all diligence that no crumme thereof perishe or fall away What needed that precept saith hee if it were common bread Verely I take it for a meere superstitious precept although it were giuen to young nouices newly admitted to the communion and yet it prooueth not the Popish reall presence vnlesse you thinke a legge or an arme falleth off if a crumme be lost What when a mouse eateth vp all in the Pixe And what can it be but the substance of breade which hath crummes that may fall from it Cyrillus in the same place sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer thou shalt leese it is manifest that in it thou hast lost as it were parte of thine owne bodie I thinke you will not say that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants that in leesing a crum they leese a parte of their bodies Hee meaneth therefore a spirituall reuerence to be giuen to the holy mysteries which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures Well after the communion of the bodie Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud bowing downe and saying in the manner of adoring worshipping Amen If he bad the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud he was no Papist though he bid them come bowing downe saying in worshipping Amen yet you finde not that he biddeth them bowe downe to the chalice or to adore that which is in it as you do We come to the communion with reuerent gesture and bowing downe yet we adore not the Sacrament But if hee meant adoring of the Sacrà ment why did he not bidde them bow downe and worship the bread as well as the cuppe Finally that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation it is plaine by his words in the same booke where hee sheweth that after the ministers of the church are sanctified by the spirituall hymnes that were song they besought their louing God to sende his holy spirit vpon the
true but with Cyril in these speaches it is nothing but true as he expoundeth himselfe Sander That which you saide of Saint Augustine Corporaliter non vmbraliter sed verè solidè I could not finde it vpon the 67. Psalm Fulke Then you sought it verie negligently for there it is written vpon the 16. verse of that Psalme in these words In ipso quippe inhabitat omnis plâ—nitudo diuinitatis non vmbraliter tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto sed corporaliter id est solidè atque veraciter For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the diuinitie not shadowedly as in the temple made by king Salomon but corporally that is to say soundly and truely This exposition of the worde corporally pleased you not and therefore you coulde not finde it for if you had red ouer little more then halfe the discourse vpon the Psalm you must needs haue found it Sander Saith not Cyrill that the mysticall blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs Fulke He saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing when it is wrought in vs maketh him to dwell also corporally in vs. Iewel Saint Paul saith The heathens are become concorporall and partakers of the promise in Iesu Christ. Sander The word corporall signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one fellowship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Fulke They are declared by S. Paul to be In Christ by the Gospell Iewell By the wordes corporally naturally a full perfect spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasies Sander Is not that coniunction which is by faith syncere loue wherof Cyrill saith we are not onely ioyned thereby but quoque also corporally a full perfect spirituall coniunction Fulke It is not full perfect by faith and loue except we be spiritually fed with the bodie blod of Christ. Sander If corporally be nothing else to say but truly without imagination How construe you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ Fulke I construe them as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said which place you list not to find And I pray you do you coÌ„strue corporally so that you vnderstand the godhead to be a bodie as in your next argument a coniugatis Sander How can you auoid the yoke the dependance the mutual respect that is betweene bodie bodily if bodily be truely then corpus with M. Iewel is latine for trueth Fulke The yoke is auoided when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude vnto that which is meant by the Nowne as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirite but after the similitude or maner of a spirite So angelicè viuere ventoâ—èiactare regaliter epulari To liue like an Angel To boast vainly like the winde To feast like a king c. As for corpus although it be not Latine for trueth yet to signifie trueth sometime it is not harde to finde in the scripture S. Paul saith The Iewish feastes are vmbra futurorum corpus autem Christi the shadowe of things to come but the bodie is of Christ what is the sense of bodie here but trueth As for Sanders feare least Christes naturall bodie might so be transformed into a trueth of faith or charitie or bones without fleshe or skinne without flesh or bones is vaine and foolish yea spiteful and malicious for if bodie and bodily be somtimes taken for trueth and truely according to the circumstance of the place it will not followe that those wordes should always be so taken where the text openly reclaimeth Iewel Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconuenience that our bodie must be in like maner cor porally naturally and fleshly in Christs bodie For Hilarius saith We also are naturally in him And Cyrillus We are corporally in Christ. Sander It is most true during the time of the coniunction Fulke The time of the coniunction is perpetual for Hilarie saith We are inseparably vnited in him lib. 〈◊〉 Teach your Papistes that the bodie of Christ is none owise in their mouth bodie then they are in the body of Christ you may whistle for your Popish real presence Iewel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being Sander That were a fine being M. Iewel that Christs bodie should be in vs corporally yet the being shoulde not be corporall Fulke This is a fine wit M. Sander being demanded of an horsmill to answere of a milhorse M. Iewell would knowe whether any corporall being is required that we I say we should be in Christ corporally You answere of Christes being in vs because you cannot auoide the absurditie of our beeing in Christe corporally after your corporall and carnall vnderstanding Iewell It requireth not any locall being Sander It is a locall being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the forme of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before Fulke That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature But why answere you of Christes being in the Sacrament when M. Iewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally I perceiue your infirmitie you cannot heare on that side Iewel Christ fitting in heauen is here in vs not by a naturall but by a spirituall meane of being Sander The being of Christ in vs by his spirite is also natural concerning the nature of his godhed which is euery where Fulke Still you take chalke for cheese Wee enquire of the beeing of his humanitie whether it may be naturally sitting in heauen and here with vs. Iewell Saint Augustine sayth After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirite And S. Basil and againe S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paul c. Sander Shall one trueth alwayes displace another with you These be sowters arguments Christ is God therefore he is not man he is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Fulke Saint Augustine by his ascension and presence by his spirite concludeth the absence of his humanitie from the earth Ascendit in Coelum non est hîc he hath ascended into heauen and he is not here In Ioan. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument except Saint Augustine be a sowter in fine Master Sanders deintie iudgement Iewell This coniunction is spirituall therefore needeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence Sander The coniunction is spirituall but the maner of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. Fulke The corporal substance needeth not to come vnto vs that a spirituall coniunction may be made betweene Christ and vs the spirite of God is the onely necessarie meane to make a spirituall coniunction Iewel The coniunction that is betweene Christ vs neither doth mingle persons nor vnite substances but it doeth knit our affects togither and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian Sander S. Cyprian
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
but that I denie for the forme of bread is no secrete but a visible and naturall thing Wherefore the mysterie vnder which we truely take the flesh of Christ must be that secrete and wonderfull manner by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vnto vs. Thirdly he sayeth that worde Proprietie doeth signifie a person because Augustine saith Christ is a vine by similitude non per proprieâ—atem not by propertie where by propertie Augustine meaneth properly and not a person Wherefore Hilarie meaneth that the naturall propertie of incorporating that meate that is eaten in the Sacrament is a Sacramentoâ— holy signe of a perfect vnitie such as is made betweene the meate and the eater and not such an agreement only as is betweene friends that are of one mind Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie where he saith the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament interpreting property for person After he hath thus abused Hilarie he commeth to Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar knowne to the faithfull where it is shewed to her that in that sacrifice which he offereth her self is offered Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme betweene Christ and his father reprouing him that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie of the bakers making c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper by the Church in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum sigrâ—â—m The visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice which inuisible sacrifice is by him expounded to be mercie and charitie yelding vp of our selues vnto the obedience â—f God vnto which the reall presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 er necessarie nor at all required seeing he hath once 〈…〉 fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect for the reâ—emption of all the elect of God His allegorie of building as it is vaine and no arguâ—ent but of Sanders owne authoritie so I passe it ouer 〈◊〉 vnworthie any answere But I cannot passe ouer that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building he saith Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar c and there is no reason why wee â—ould be called his mysticall bodie or flesh of his flesh and bone 〈◊〉 his bone By which saying he denyeth all the Patriarks 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ flesh of his flesh â—nd bone of his bone But we knowe that by Christs inâ—arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud â—nto all his elect by his spirit they with vs and we with â—hem are all members of Christ flesh of his flesh and â—one of his bone without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament and this communication is sealed vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper Sander citeth Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyrill and Theodoret to prooue that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereunto we are ioyned and further vrging the similitude of mariage whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled not more grossely then filthily compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ vnto the acte of generation in marriage about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues Whereunto I answere shortly that we do acknowledge that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ which he tooke of our nature by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God which can be nothing else but his spirite although the same be assured vnto vs by faith our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God and especially by the supper of our Lorde but not onely thereby As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned which Sander requireth is no naturall presence in one proper place more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into euery one of our bodies then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper placeâ— heauen as Augustine affirmeth by his spirite wee are all brought vp vnto him as the Apostle saith Eph. 2. not â—e brought downe vnto vs. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vnto 〈◊〉 vnder asacrament he meaneth not of anie carrâ—ll manner of mixture but such as is sub Sacramento vnder a sacrament â—nd mysterie that is by the visible sacrament taught to bee truely but yet after a spirituall manner Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vs that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe not onely by loue but in deede No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe to bee carnall but onely spirituall For what madnesse were it to say that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ after a corporall manner To conclude Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words sense For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in noâ—is fiat nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi For as much as the mys 〈…〉 al blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vs if it selfe haue not Christes flesh corporally in it But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vs but the vertue of the mysticall blessing which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs. For thus he writeth against the Arrians Anfoâ—tesse putat ignotam nobis mys 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse Quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne â—â—poraliâ—er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vnto vs which when it is wrought in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs also corporally by communicating of the fleshe of Christ It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament that maketh Christe â—o dwell in vs corporallie and by naturall paticipation â—s hee saith afterwarde By which tearmes yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction but a true and vndoubted vniting of vs to the nature and bodie of Christ which is performed by the vertue of his