gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
into the wildernesse at the comming of Antichrist is to become inuisible to the worlde Although this article bee not a matter of faith in controuersie betweene vs neither yet so affirmed of mee as though to bee in the wildernesse were nothing else but to bee inuisible to the worlde yet I will proue so much as I affirmed that the Church being in the wildernesse is inuisible to the worlde The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not is to them inuisible But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world inuisible Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the beginning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion Before I proue this it were reason you should tell how sone you meane or I said such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing shoulde bee And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christes seconde comming The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken vp to God and his throne the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wildernesse The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely obscurely described by dayes monethes 〈…〉 d yeares and generally by a time times and halfe a 〈…〉 e which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be in account of our yeres nor when 〈…〉 comming of Christ should be After this hee saith I triumph in lying when I af 〈…〉 me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely 〈…〉 ipture whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter as to prooue that the tryall of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to bee onely by scripture And 〈…〉 terwarde hee sayth playnely they refuse the tryall 〈…〉 onely scriptures but not by scriptures no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith because they refuse onely faith 〈…〉 here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one 〈…〉 in the minor of this argument The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee 〈…〉 led onely by the voyce of Christ therefore shee is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona 〈…〉 le man woulde haue vnderstoode onely in the maior 〈…〉 so seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled 〈…〉 y the voyce of an other man then her husbande or 〈…〉 hat will bee ruled by her selfe or take vppon 〈…〉 er to ouerrule her husbande I added also in the 〈…〉 inor which Bristow omitteth that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions and com 〈…〉 mitteth grosse idolatrie Ar. 99. Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas 〈…〉 mie for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemeÌ„t 〈…〉 he answereth it is al one as if I shold say the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will bâ— cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned being hiâ— selfe a fisherman and vnstable did misconster S. Pauâ— epistles c. to their owne damnation which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue that the Apâ— stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God 〈◊〉 contrarie to the scriptures in other places to iudge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture as the Popish Church doeth 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter being an Apostle indued with so mâ— ny graces was vnlearned because hee had beene a 〈◊〉 sherman Agayne where I sayde the Popishe Church ma 〈…〉 festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures when shee affirmeth that no booke 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonicall but so far foorth as sh 〈…〉 will allowe it This sayth Bristowe is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them manifestly reiâ—cted the whole c because they made a Canon or Câ—nons whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonicall wherevppon him selfe also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet proued for they may bee called the Canon and Canonicall because they are the certayne rule to directe 〈◊〉 matters of religion But admitte the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them in hauing the spir 〈…〉 of discretion made such a Canon to discerne true aâ—d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or writen by the spirite of man what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalengeth that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholomewe as of Mathew of Thomas as of Iohn c whereby it followeth that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas Where I sayde the popish Bishoppes durst not abyde the conference at Westminster first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase because I saide it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde as one that care not what I say In deede I 〈…〉 de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which woulde not take my wordes as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉 ght haue knowledge of it Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference in com 〈…〉 rison of the councell of Trent yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken but such as was well liked of by the Papistes 〈…〉 m selues vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no 〈…〉 dite Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell 〈◊〉 Trent being so solemnly honorably inuited with 〈…〉 h safeconductes c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for euer on your behalfes And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered I say it was to no purpose in such a 〈…〉 cke councell where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll partie that is accused of heresie shall be the onely 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples lawes equitie and reason Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole countrie I will not quarell at your phrase 〈…〉 t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie But nowe to the fourefolde offer wherein first you say that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande â—e compt you as you shew your selues to bee errant â—aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent we owe no more subiection 〈…〉
All true doctrine is taught in the scripture Purgatorie is not taught in the scripture therefore purgatorie is no true doctrine Bristowe denyeth both the maior and minor The maior I haue prooued in this chapter part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church which I also confesse to be the true Church in the thirde counce 〈…〉 of Carthage and therefore it is canonicall if any other scripture be Canonicall Supposing that which is false that the Macabees were canonicall yet is not Purgatorie prooued by them prayer for the deade doeth not necessarily drawe purgatorie after it The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade yet they doe not receiue the doctrine of purgatorie But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical he citeth the third councel of Carthage wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon whereas wee knowe there are onely three namely the Prouerbes the Canticles and the Preacher Therefore that canon prooueth a manifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon and say they bee Canonicall if any other scripture bee Cano nicall The Councell of Laodicea more auncient nameth not the Machabees Hierome a Priest of Rome expressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall Praefatione â—n Prouerbia Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues doe minister which agree that they were writen by the spirite of man and not by the spirite of God To proceede Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie that wee may not praye for all men liuing I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death of which Iohn saith I say not that you shoulde pray for it or that any man should pray for it as your vulgar traÌ„slation hath it But howe it is prooued out of that place he saith neuer a worde Last of all purgatorie is taught saith Bristowe Specially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently that Martha and Marie as the scripture is manifest did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his bodie before the generall resurrection If that bee so manifest what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Martha woulde haue Christ to pray for when shee saide thus vnto him But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges thou shalte aske of God God will graunt thee To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place Thus farre Bristowe But I pray you sir why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so expounde the place Peraduenture they were not worth the naming But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the comming of Christe to all times after as though I sayd that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie as Allen impudently coniectureth that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their prayers made at his tombe where there is no mention of any prayers but of lamentation only I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or honestie or else lesse impudence malice But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine order as I aunswered Allen but in this confuse manner to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt and then to play with them at your pleasure 2 Ab authoritate scripturae affirmatiuè First about certaine foundations of purgatorie and prayer for the dead I saide the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall Veniall shewing that all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or veniall except the sinne against the holy ghost Bristowe saith that I here graunt the doctrine and yet deny the distinction which is vtterly false for that all sinnes deserue eternall death and yet be pardonable it ouerthroweth the doctrine and distinction both For the Papistes holde that there are some sinnes so small as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe extendeth not vnto eternall death saying that hanging on tree or crucifying is not eternal death and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21. Againe euery one in the saying of the Apostle is not meant of Christians but of them which trust in the lawe it selfe c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce Nequaquam moriemini Tush you shall not die the curse of God doeth not bring eternall death you neede not be so greatly affraide of it c But where learned you Bristowe that the curse of God which is vppon him that hangeth on tree is not a visible token that hee deserueth eternall death Is â—ot the text plaine against you Deut. 21. When a man â—ath sinned worthy of death and is iudged to death â—anged on the tree his carcase shall not remaine vppon 〈…〉 e tree but shal be buryed the same day for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath â—iuen thee to possesse He is not therefore accursed beâ—ause he is hanged on the tree if he were innocent but â—ecause he hath sinned worthie of death so is hanged 〈◊〉 which respecte our sauiour Christ being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree though most innocent in his owne person 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes became â—ccursed for vs not to discharge vs of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternall death but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall vppon an innocent person but 〈◊〉 redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe whiche wee â—aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifolde sinnes and transgressions And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e payne of eternall death I wishe euerie man 〈…〉 at will not bee deceyued with the flattering voyce 〈…〉 f the Serpent to giue eare to the worde of GOD â—here hee shall see that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people â—gainst idolaters cursers
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
so farre forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them alâ—â—ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the â—criptures After this he gathereth that I place all in a mans owne 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men but to reade the scriptures 〈…〉 onferre the places and so gather the meaning by him selfe So that with him it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my 〈…〉 ule Magnificè igitur salubriter c. Magnificallye â—herefore and wholesomely the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures that with open places hee â—ight satisfie hunger with darke places he might wype â—ff lothsomnesse for nothing in a manner is brought â—ut of those obscurities which may not bee founde in â—ome other place most plainely spoken It is nothing â—hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scripâ—ures by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the interpretors But if diligence may doe so much hee telâ—â—th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semiâ—arie for Englande vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen which prooueth it selfe to bee a semiâ—arie of treason in much reading and conferring of the scriptures with all other helpes and meanes whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee by mine owne rule No Bristowe not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe without the extraordinarie grace of God shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth which they seeke not in them but the confirmation of their preiudicated erronious and hereticall opinions There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding and in the ende concludeth Non enim sensi 〈…〉 c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense without the scriptures that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts to be proued against vs wheÌ„ we see the booke wee will shewe you our iudgement In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour then you in vaunting of it before it come forth I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome nor honestic The 3. part What he meaneth by his onely scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture I meane by onely scripture what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as expresse wordes For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe say I may be prooued by scripture either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion which is all one Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade Bristow saith I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession The scripture it self that I except against by calling for Canonicall scripture is the booke of Machabees which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres The 4. part What great promises he maketh to bring most euident scriptures against vs and also by scripture to proue his sense of the scripture Triumphing also before the victorie and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture but reiect the Scriptures where 〈…〉 n a fourefold offer is made vnto him Before he rehearse my words of promise he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shewed me first to admitte no eui 〈…〉 nce that they alledge but scripture onely both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture 〈…〉 at euidence I admit and howe farre hath beene shew 〈…〉 before more at large in my answere to his motiues 〈…〉 d demaunds Secondly he saith I admitte no scripture 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall though I graunt 〈…〉 o haue the confirmation of the same true Church which 〈…〉 oueth me as the holy ghost to receiue the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical This he speaketh for the Machabees 〈…〉 oke which although I denie to bee canonicall yet I 〈…〉 uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch neither yet euer had it againe where he saith 〈…〉 e true Church moueth me as the holy ghost to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonicall hee doth mee 〈…〉 onge for the Church moueth not me as the holy ghost 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of mouing the holye Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moueth mee the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse Thirdly hee saith I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonicall vnlesse it make so expressely so plainely so manifestly so necessarily with them that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded This proposition being in the copulatiue is false for I admit arguments taken either out of the expresse and plaine words of scripture or of collection necessarily concluding Let him make a newe logike if hee will haue me admitte argumentes that doe not conclude necessarily Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter Then folâ—oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme â—hat by the grace of God I am able to proue euery arti 〈…〉 e of faith that wee holde against the papistes by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures Bristowe saith in the next chapter I shall haue ynowe yet if 〈◊〉 will one article shall be this That Antichrist is not one certaine person That I shall easily proue thus One certaine person is not many Antichrists there haâ—â— beene manie therefore Antichriste is not one certaine person The minor is saint Iohn Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers 18. Againe Antichrist is hee whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely 1. Iohan. 2. vers 22. Againe Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe is the spirite of Antichrist but this is not the spirite of one certaine person ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person The whoore of Babylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person An other article that hee requireth me to proue is That the Churches flying
And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers that defende such prayers confessed they had them not of the Scriptures Of certaine particular textes I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare that the text 1. Cor. 3. of him that shal be saued through fire proueth not Purgatorie affirming that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life Bristowe cauilling that he affirmeth not but speaketh doubtfully c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire But Augustines wordes are plaine Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apoâ—tolus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh ought to be vnderstoode such that both may passe thorough it that is both he that buildeth vpon this foundation Golde Siluer pretious stones and he also which buildeth Woode Strawe Stubble For when he had saide this he added The fire shal trie euerie mans work such as it is if any mans worke remaine that which he hath builded vpon he shall receiue rewarde But if any mans worke be burned he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shal be saued yet so as it were through fire The fire truely is the tentation of tribulation of which it is manifestly written in an other place The fornace proueth the potters vessels and tentation of tribulation iust men This fire in this present life worketh that which the Apostle saith c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe Againe he speaketh not at all against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire that it shall haue an end but against such as in his time did holde That they which forsake not the name of Christ and are baptised with his lauer in the Church and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie although they liue in neuer so great wickednes which they neither wash away by repenting nor redeemed with almes but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life shal be saued through fire although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long but yet not eternal fire But they which beleeue this yet are catholikes seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence For the holy scripture being consulted answereth another thing c. Enc. ad Laurentium C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire through which some should passe not all therfore against the popishe purgatorie although he denye not but such a thing may be yet it cannot be proued by this place nor by any other place of scripture as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. diuision of this chapter where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie I answered Allen apposing vs where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way is cast into hell from whence he shal neuer come I alledged for that sense Chrysostome Augustine Hierom Chromatius This is passing childish saith Bristow For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing But this in deede is passing impudence for Allens words in the same diuision after he hath posed Caluin Flaccus Luther Iewel about their interpretation of scriptures are these But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title is of that place Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow it is not true that all those doctors haue that sense which I affirme them to haue But he only saith it let their wordes be read Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true As in that saying Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing some haue expounded that he shall alwayes be punished some that hee shall not be alwayes punished Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true Mary sayth Bristow with as fine Rhetorike as strong Logike Thus it is true those he and he are not one he but he that shal be alwayes punished is he that to the end of the way that is this life agreeth not with his aduersarie whome he hath deadly iniuryed as saying to him fatue and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis which iâ— the prison of the damned He that shal not be alwayes punished is he whose iniury was but veniall as Racha And so both interpretations agree well not onely together but also with the text it selfe In deede this is a fine distinction of he and he but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way shal be cast into prison from whence he shall neuer come whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them there is but one prison from whence there is no deliuerance vntil the last farthing be payde which by those doctors exposition is neuer payde Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser the punishment is eternall without reconciliation or as Saint Luke sayeth diligence to be reconciled If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee goe and reconcile thy selfe sayeth Christe and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger or saying Racha and not onely of saying Fatue But as for that he which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him he is not at all committed to prison were his iniurie great or small So that which He soeuer commeth into prison there is no waye of escape vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged Secondly whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testimonie against vs. First about the booke of Machabees Where I sayde that Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD Bristowe replyeth as though all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures Fulk reioyneth that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes is not canonicall Where I take exception to the Councel of Carthage which numbreth this booke among
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
to it them to the citie of Louaine The first offer is that wee must proeure a safecon 〈…〉 uct for you from the Court in such forme as the coun 〈…〉 ll gaue vs and some of you will come ouer and ioyne with vs in any conference that shall bee prescribed according to the common lawes of a conference 〈◊〉 there you refer mee to your 19. and 1. demaunde wheretâ— I haue made aunswere alreadie But as concerning yo 〈…〉 request that we shoulde procure safeconduct for yo 〈…〉 it is altogether vnresonable because you are not on 〈…〉 heretikes but also rebelles conspirators and traytors to whome no wise state will graunt safecoâ—ducte Your seconde offer is that I shoulde ioyne wi 〈…〉 you vppon Collatio Carthaginensis touching whic 〈…〉 you haue mine aunswere in my Retentiue against yo 〈…〉 moriues Your slaunderous and shamelesse complaynt of o 〈…〉 Bishoppes and commissioners oppressing papistes with heauie yâ—ons butchers axes the whole world if you w 〈…〉 giue me leaue to speake so may knowe to bee false Their gretest seueritie is lenity if it be coÌ„pared with popishe tyrannic practised by your Bishoppes and buâ—ning butchers in Queene Maries time Your thirde offer is that I shoulde sende you soâ—â— of my fellowes or scholers it is well you require n 〈…〉 me to come my selfe which shall neede no other saâ—â—conduct but their quiet and modest behauiour as the example of some â—ugitiues hath prooued all satisfied by your conference and seeing and hearing your dayly reading and examination of the scirptures I aunswere if you coulde procure as good a safecondicte 〈◊〉 Sygismond the Emperor gaue to Iohn Hus Hieroâ— of Prage I durst not aduenture to sende them if h 〈…〉 any fellowes or scholers whome I might send into the handes of Papistes and traytors much lesse dare I sende or exhorte any to goe vpon your credite without safe-conduct Your fourth offer is to aunswere such scriptures as I haue alledged in both my bookes in the next chapter whereto you shall by the grace of God receiue a reply without any long delay Your translation of the bible that you make some 〈…〉 omise of when it commeth foorth we shall con 〈…〉 er of it But where you say Wee haue serued our 〈…〉 ntrie with the olde Testament of the late obstinate Iewes 〈…〉 welling diuiding and reading it beeing it selfe but one verse 〈◊〉 the whole Psalter and ech other particular booke and onely 〈…〉 sonantes and to bee rcade according to the tradition of the 〈…〉 thfull which tradition you knowe by your authenticall tran 〈…〉 tions and not of the incredulous and perâ—idious c. you 〈…〉 rite both like an ignorant asse and like an impudent 〈…〉 asphemer For first where you say the vowelling diui 〈…〉 ng reading is of the late obstinate Iewes you declare 〈…〉 neither you haue seene nor reade the auncient coÌ„men 〈…〉 ries of the Iewes that are extant in which this vowel 〈…〉 ng diuiding and reading is contayned nor once haue 〈…〉 ard of the most auncient trauell of the Mazorites 〈…〉 hich sone after the dispertion of the Iewes with won 〈…〉 rful care and diligence almost vnto superstition haue 〈…〉 gistred the vowelling diuiding and reading as it 〈…〉 as then receiued euen from the Patriarkes and Pro 〈…〉 etes of euerie verse and worde in the olde Testa 〈…〉 ent in so much that if any letter or point by the 〈…〉 ult of the writer in the copies which they vsed were 〈…〉 ch as might easily be corrected by the Grammer yet 〈…〉 ey durst not amend it but haue euen so commended 〈◊〉 vnto vs as if there bee any learned in that tongue of â—hich you make some bragges they are able to make report vnto you Again what a monstuous thing is this that there should be but one verse or sentence in the whole Psalter and in ech booke without my distinction or diuision you might as well say there is but one worde in euery booke Againe where you say there bee onely 〈…〉 onsonantes although they that be exercised in the Heâ—rewe tongue and in the grammer thereof can reade â—ithout the vowelling pointes yet they cannot alwaies â—aue certaintie seeing some words with diuerse points 〈…〉 oe not onely signifie diuerse thinges but some 〈…〉 imes also contrarie thinges Howe then coulde eue 〈…〉 ie godly man exercise him selfe day and night in the 〈…〉 tudie of Gods lawe according to his commandement when it were not possible for one among an hundreth to reade it without poyntes and distinctions of sentences Our sauiour Christ in affirming that not so much 〈◊〉 one iot or point of the law shal perish doth sufficiently declare that the lawe of God had vowelling diuiding pointes as wel as letters consonants As for your authenticall translations you prate of we knowe that in mâ—ny places they erre not onely by missing the vowell 〈…〉 but also by peruerting the consonantes And if it b 〈…〉 so as you threaten in the seconde part of this Chapter that one of your side shall shortely set foorth a booke to shewe to the worlde that the Hebrew and Greekâ— textes in nothing make for vs against you and in verie many thinges make for you against vs much moâ—e plainely then your vulgar latine texte wee haue not serued our countrie amisse in translation of the olde Testament according to the Hebrewe which maketh more for you then your owne vulgar latine so much as you say against vs. But nowe to all your foure offers I will oppose one more reasonable more easie more indiffereÌ„t which without daunger without suite without fraude me thinkes in equitie you may not refuse And that is such as I made concerning mine aunswers vnto your popish treatises prefixed before my Retentiue againste your motiues that if you will conclude anye controuersie of religion that is betweene vs in the stricte forme of Logicall argumentes which is the best triall of trueth in matters of doubt I will aunswere you as breefely and either shewe plainely the inconsequens of your argument or else by sufficient authoritie or conclusion of syllogisme aduouch the contradiction of your maior or minor or both if they both happen to be false In the meane time if you had rather be respondent then opponent there is a littell treatise called Syllogisticon that hath beene set foorth by Maister Foxe allmost twentie yeares agoe against transubstantiation and the carnall presence of Christes body in the sacrament of his supper if your stomak serue you you may endeuor 〈…〉 our selfe to aunswere that chalenge CAP. VIII To shewe his vanitie in his foresaide rigorous exacting of 〈…〉 ayne scripture and great promises to bring playne scripture 〈…〉 nferring place with place so euidently All the scriptures that he 〈…〉 ledgeth are examined and aunswered And first concerning the 〈…〉 estion of onely scripture First Bristowe as his common maner is slandereth 〈…〉 e to affirme that in all matters only euident
I haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places Where I saide it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body or whether Christ haue any more bodies It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church but I pardon Bristowes ignorance and answere him that the sacrament is neither his naturall nor his mysticall body in proper speeche But secundum quendam modum as Aug. saith after a certain manner both And I read in Theodoret of a third body which the sacrament is De typico symbolicoque corpore a typicall or sacramentall body The place of Augustine in Psalm 58. with the cauillation of Adoration which Bristowe maketh is examined in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander Lib. 6. Cap. 2. The place of Augustine which I translated worde for worde and faithfully gaue the sense thereof as euerie man may see that readeth it Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth setting the carte before the horse in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation speaking of signes namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament Sed quia haec c. But because these thinges are knowen to men because they are done by men they may haue honour as religious things but wonder as miracles they cannot haue Whereof if he had known the carnal presence change of the bread such as the papistes speake of he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature which they are constrained to faine although no man can see them wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere Lib. 2. Cap. 4â— And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation saith Bristowe because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter before the last councell of Trent you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. â—2 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 6 About the sacrament of penance Absolution About the sacrament of penance the Popish Church saith foure thinges first that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away but one houres torment in Purgatorie as the master of the sentences teacheth is not taken away therby and Allen confesseth Bristowe saith it auaileth to take away the torments of hell But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to Gods ministers for absolution giueth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christes office in earth both for pardoning and punishing of sinne that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bristowe and himselfe and left naked in this place as almost in all places by Bristowe who would seeme to take vpon him his defence The second thing is temporall debt remaining after absolution Touching this matter I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron that they were signes of things to come not punishments of Gods displeasure Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristowe complayneth of my synceritie and rehearseth the wordes before When it is said to them that they should be gathered to their people It is manifest that they be not in the wrath of God which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie Thereby it is manifest that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come not punishments of Gods indignation What want of synceritie is here except there be so great difference betweene indignation and displeasure But Bristowe cauilleth of the wrath that separateth for euer as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time Yet the scripture presseth where God saide you shall die because you did not beleeue me This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution wherof the question is but a fatherly correction to them and an example vnto other Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise then the punishment was that they should not enter into the earthly possession Likewise I reported that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc mer. ac rem Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after â—his adultery remitted was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge Bristowe asketh if it be no punishment because it is a scourge yes verily and whether it be not for sinne yes truly But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remaining after absolution when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement For I chastice not my childe that his punishment should satisfie any part of his fault but to keepe him in humility and feare for committing the like and for example to the rest of my family as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians shewing why death that came in by sinne stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme that they owe nothing neither eternally nor temporally for them if death in such be any temporall debt remaining after absolution when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment Bristow saith he speaketh of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe Allen of forgiuenesse in penance But he may not creepe out at that hole it is too straight for him Chrysostome speaketh generally wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment yea he saith Vbi gratia ibi venia where grace is there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse and where there is forgiuenesse there shal be no punishment neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word either of Iewe or Baptisme but of all Christians escaping by grace the wrath which the lawe worketh and beeing made heires of the promise by faith The third thing is satisfaction against which Bristow saith I alledged Chrysostome and Ambrose so fondly that the wordes which I alledge will declare Chrysost. De Compunct Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit c. God
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
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
singularly due but such a worship of which sorte there is but one and in the tenth hee saith such a worshipping that onely is which is due to God who as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honor I aunswere the veneration honor worship or reuerence due singularly to the sacrament is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meates and not of all other thinges in generall His wordes are Which did not discerne the sacrament from all other meates by a reuerence singularly due to it that is to say of all other meat onely the sacrament ought to haue that reuerence or honor Euen so the water of baptisme must bee discerned from all other waters veneratione singulariter debita by a veneration or reuerence singularly due vnto it being consecrated to the mysticall washing away of our sinnes and yet no diuine honor must be giuen to the water of baptisme Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing lesse then that the sacrament shoulde bee worshipped as God man really present vnder those visible shapes of bread wine as Sander impudently doth slander him But it is worthie to be remembred saith he That Augustine vseth the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes fleshe conteined vnder the signe of bread Who wil graunt this vnto Sander well if you will not graunt it he hath reason to prooue it For Augustine saith he would neuer haue granted that either the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honored For honor can be giuē to no vnreasonable creaturs Is this that Sander which defendeth the honoring of images or else be images reasonable creatures But hee careth not what he saith so he may seeme to say something to the matter in hande In deede Augustine woulde neuer defende that diuice honor shoulde be giuen to the sacrament but there is a kinde of honor which may bee giuen euen vnto the vnreasonable creatures not in respect of themselues but in respect of him to whome all honor and glorie is dewe if they be of him taken and appointed to any honorable vse Last of all we must consider what it should meane that Augustine saith The Sacrament may bee honored by our absteining sometimes from receiuing it into our mouthes whereas it is no honor to God if wee shoulde any moment absteine to feede on him by faith and in spirite Therefore it is a worthier kinde of substance which is receiued in the sacrament then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating For his grace cannot come except wee first bee made meete to receaue it But his bodie maye come to our bodies and so maie condemne vs before we are meete to receiue it To this friuolous collection I aunswere that there is no honor done to the Sacrament by absteining from it but by humilitie as the similitude of the Centurion declareth who counted himselfe vnworthie that the Lorde shoulde come vnder his roofe Againe Augustine defendeth not the acte of either of both partes as good of it selfe but making that to be indifferent he onely defendeth their intent and meaning which was to yeelde due reuerence to the Lordes sacrament the one by often receauing the other by humble intermission least the offences shoulde in their weake nature breede contempte of so high a mysterie For although wee ought continually to feed on Christ by faith yet it is not necessarie nor conuenient nor possible that the pledge and seale of this spirituall feeding shoulde euerie moment be receaued But only at such times as the Church Elders thereof shall thinke expedient for the renuing of our remembrance and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christes institution So that no worthier substance can bee gathered to bee receaued in the Sacrament then the grace of God And where Sander saith that his grace cannot come except wee bee first made meete to 〈◊〉 I answere that we are not made meete to receiue the grace of God but onely by the grace of God preuenting all preparation of our owne As for his bodie comming into our bodies when it is prooued out of the worde of God it shal be graunted but not before Finally whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ which is receiued of which the Centurion said I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe I answere he may no more vrge the substance of Christ in the one similitude of the Centurion then he wil alow me to vrge it is not the same substance by the other similitude of Manna which Augustine likewise vseth As for the same words of the Centurion vsed in the Lyturgie ascribed to Chrysostome in adoring the sacrament I denie that any adoration is meant vnto the Sacrament or that those wordes are spoken vnto the Sacrament but vnto Christ in heauen whose Sacrament that is What is said or done in the Masse booke I neither knowe nor care That Origen Hom. 5. in diuersos exhorteth them that receiue the Sacrament to vse that speach of the Centurion it prooueth neither adoration nor carnall manner of presence For immediatly before he hath these wordes Inerat nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium duplici figura vel more Nunc enim quando sancti Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient Et aliud quando sanctum cibum c. The Lorde doth now also enter vnder the roofe of the faithfull in a double figure or manner For nowe when the holy and acceptable to God the rulers of the Churches doe enter vnder thy roofe then euen there the Lorde by them doth enter And thinke thou euen as receiuing the Lorde him selfe And againe when thou receiuest that holy and incorruptible meate c. Beholde Origen saith Christ entreth in a figure and after such manner as he entreth by his ministers of which entrance hee teacheth man likewise to say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe therefore this saying importeth no substance of the naturall bodie of Christ really present in the sacrament CAP. V. That the fathers of the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christ did adore the bodie and bloude of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar The first which is Dionysius falsely called the Areopagite could be no writer of the first 600. yeares whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus nor Germadius gatherers of all ecclesiasticall writers before their time did knowe Concerning his saying I referre the reader to mine answere to Heskins lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder then his autor Dionyse on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis The next is Cyprian which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith that our sacrifice is Christ but Christ is to bee adored saith Sander ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament I answere whatsoeuer after any manner is called Christ
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
meaneth we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie Fulke He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances namely of the substance of our bodies with the substance of the bodie of Christ. Iewell The coniunction because it is spiritual true full and perfect is expressed by this terme corporall Sander As though God because he is spiritual true full and perfect he might therefore be called corporall Fulke As though that which is in somethings is necessarie to bee in all thinges and yet the Godhead which is spiritually truly fully and perfectly in Christ is said to be in him corporally Col. 2. Sander Who euer heard of such vanitie because it is spirituall it is termed corporall Fulke Who euer heard vainer sophistrie then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together Master Iewel addeth true full perfect Iewel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maneâ— light and accidentall ioyning Sander If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substantiall ioyning remaineth A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together Fulke The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned whome the spirite of Christe can couple though they be in place distant with an inseparable vnion Iewell It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs onely by receiuing the Sacrament Sander Neuer a father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your owne head Fulke All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vs corporally speake generally of all the members of the Church of which many haue not receiued the Sacrament therefore it is not by the Sacrament onely Sander Seeing wee cannot haue him corporally in vs without his bodie be within vs and yet none other thing is his bodie beside that which is deliuered at his supper by that meane onely hee may bee corporally in vs. Fulke Neuer a father by you named either sayeth or meaneth that any of your two propositions are true therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade Iewel By Master Hardings construction the childe is damned who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sander No Catholike doeth teache so Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion Fulke Ergo Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally Iewell Without naturall participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation Sander If it be so it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie Fulk It is so because Christ saith Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. and because it is so and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist This naturall participation eating of the flesh of Christ is not onely in the Eucharist Iewell S. Chrysostome saith In the Sacrament of baptisme we are made flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones Sander These wordes you haue not in Chrysostome Fulke You cauill at the forme of wordes whereupon M. Iewell standeth not when you cannot auoide the matter Sander He saith they that are partakers of the mysteries can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him Fulke That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only Sander Moreouer he giueth another sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum Fulke That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense Sander He sheweth that we are taken out of Christs side as Eua out of Adam Fulke If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Sander Although it were in him yet is it to no purpose for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ which may be meant of his mysticall flesh another thing to partake his flesh naturally We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes Fulke What can it bee to partake naturally his flesh if it be not to become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones you saye we may be made of his flesh by spirituall meanes what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones yea of his mysticall flesh What are we made mysticall flesh then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter Sander The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted sometime of baptisme sometime of Christes supper is because in the olde time in manye countries the Sacrament of Christes bodie was giuen straight after baptisme Fulke A wise reason why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments which was proper to one They were not ministred so neete in time but they could discerne what was common what was peculiar to either of them Iewel Master Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament Sander It is you that are not able to finde it for D. Harding hath founde it and I haue shewed it in Chrysostome S. Hilarie Gregorie Nyssen Fulke Let the readers iudge what you haue founde but vaine cauillations for neither the words nor the matters you haue shewed Sander So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great partly a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament Fulk So would I answere you sufficiently for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus but that I haue answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate Harding The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time haue vsed the termes really substantially c. to exclude metaphors and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ by meane of his naturall flesh really though not locally present Iewell These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming Sander Hee named none because your impudent proclamation bound him to the time Fulke He was not so bound to the time but he might haue named if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares Sander Damascen saith the bread wine water is supernaturally changed into the body bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh and these are aboue 700. yeres old speaking of transubstantiation Fulke Neither of both vseth the termes really substantially c. which is the matter in question And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation nor the Church of the Grecians whereof they were members vnto this day doth acknowledge