haue no more to say but it seemeth as though he would haue me â—harge the man or the time with more thaÌ„ I can manifestly proue But seing I quote no place for it he dare say I haue it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries As for the Centuries I dare say I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together or in partes But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most auncient writers my book of notes writteÌ„ with mine owne hande more then 15. yeares past The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium c. where he hath these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marriages are sinners by our maisters iudgement I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages but to wanton beholding of women And therefore I doe not precisely charge Iustinus And yet againe I say it seemeth that the Church in his time was in some error because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher that liued in a manner in the same time doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium a faire kinde of adultery Qui namque repudiauerit inquit c. For hee that shall forsake his wife saith Christ and marry another doth commit adulterie suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away whose flower of virginitie he hath defiled nor to goe vnto seconde marriages For he that depriueth him selfe of his former wife although after she is deade a diuorcement is made is a secrete and couered adulterer transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman and dissoluing fleshe from flesh the vnion of commixtion instituted for the participation of kinde and sexe c. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time because he writeth this in that Apologie which he made in defence of all Christians which it is not like he woulde present to the Emperor in the name of them all except he had written that which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time Concerning Hieronyme Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe not onelye against malicious enuiers but also towardes Godly Bishoppes and Christians Apol. ad Pammachium Where as I laye vnto Hierom two other perilous Assertions whereof the one tendeth to destroye the humanitie of Christ the other to giue diuinity to the martyrs where hee saith The soules of the martyrs follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth and thereof concludeth If the Lambe be euery where those also that are with the Lambe must bee beleeued to bee euerie where Bristowe aunswereth that the sainctes are not euerie â—here in personall presence How then But of such power 〈…〉 ey be that they heare their suters in all places at once and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heale helpe whom they will Euen 〈…〉 s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea 〈…〉 eth his suters in all places and in personall presence assi 〈…〉 ed Saint Stephen and whomsoeuer else hee will I say according also to his humanitie c. But what say you according to his humanitie is hee euerie where that is the question and not of his power in hearing suters or helping them If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie speake plainely and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare If you interprete euerie where for all power how can you giue all power to the soules of Martyrs which they ascribe onely to GOD and the Lambe Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vnto the soules of Saintes such power that they heare the suters in all places at once c Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing vnderstanding and helping For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once is a diuine priuiledge not communicable to any creature that is not GOD. The argument therefore of inuocation of sainctes whiche you acompte to bee so stronge without horrible blasphemie against the diuine nature can neuer bee defended The Sainctes followe the Lambe not to bee of diuine nature or equall power with him but to bee partakers of his glorie according to his grace and the measure and capacitie of nature created Touching praying to the Sonne and to the holy Ghoste Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the error of the Church in any thinge I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere That the Councell of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue decreed that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father which is no small error seeing that hereof it followeth that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost or to the blessed Trinitie What moued those fathers thus to decree I know not but certayne it is the decree is erronius and offensiue Bristowe cauelleth at my collections as vnnecessarie that no prayers may bee directed but to the father whereas my wordes haue relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off Also that the verie prayers at the altar may not be directed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost because for orders sake they are appointed to be directed to the father I say sauing the authoritie of the councell which appointeth them to be directed to the father alwaies they may not otherwise I doubt not but they may And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum Petrum diaconum that the prayers although they bee directed to the father yet are made to the holy Trinitie especially because of the conclusion which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same I must put him in remembraunce that in Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde c which is also sayde in his Masse both the prayers is directed to God the sonne yet no conclusion there is naming the father and the holy Ghost Let Bristow therefore choose whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage or else acknowledge that the Romishe Church doth erre in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost 5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time Inâ—ocentius him selfe Bishoppe of Rome with this error 〈…〉 at they did
bee the author the Prophetes and Apostles for witnesses vnder this antiquitie that which had an erroneus beginning shall haue a shamefull ending Purg. 399. Heere Bristowe taketh aduantage of the Printers error although he be admonished 〈◊〉 of in the Corrections and not content with that 〈…〉 fieth my wordes making me to say as for witnesse 〈◊〉 this antiquitie we passe not for them Yes 〈◊〉 we esteeme all good witnesses of that auncient 〈◊〉 whereof God is the author But you say the rule w 〈…〉 receyue proueth the Apostles to be authors of sole 〈…〉 payer for the dead in the Masse such like articles 〈◊〉 taught and beleeued before Luther began such 〈…〉 uations c. But I reply that Vincentius rule is 〈◊〉 such fooles fable but requireth antiquitie to bee 〈…〉 tinued alwayes euen from Christ which seeing you 〈◊〉 not shewe noâ— other conditions which hee requi 〈…〉 for your articles his rule helpeth you nothing at a◠〈◊〉 rule which he handleth at large throughout his b 〈…〉 is briefly set downe in this sentence In ipsa 〈…〉 Ecclesia mag 〈…〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 id 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈…〉 er 〈◊〉 ab 〈…〉 us 〈…〉 est 〈…〉 propriâ—que C 〈…〉 n qâ—â—d iâ—sa 〈…〉 q 〈…〉 d 〈…〉 A 〈…〉 the Catholike Church it selfe wee must greatly 〈◊〉 that wee hold that thing which hath bene euery 〈…〉 which hath beene alwayes which hath beene of all 〈◊〉 beleeued for that is truely and properly Ca 〈…〉 which the verie force and reason of the name d 〈…〉 reth that comprehendeth al thinges truely 〈…〉 ly Examine your articles by this rule aâ—d you 〈◊〉 finde not one of them catholike So that my excep 〈…〉 of the soueraigne authority of only scripture 〈…〉 deth 〈◊〉 well with the rules both of Tertulliâ—â— and Vince 〈…〉 Lyri 〈…〉 For to the trueth as Aristotle saith all 〈…〉 ges agree that are true but fâ—lshoode soone bewrayeth itselfe 2 Aga 〈…〉 the A 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Aga 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ed traditions of the Apo 〈…〉 I make exceptioÌ„ of the writinges of the Apostles to bâ—â— the onely c 〈…〉 yne 〈…〉 esse of theâ—â— true tradition Aâ—d I saye Allâ—â— blâ—â—phâ—mously fâ—thereth â—ppon the Apo 〈…〉 the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for the 〈…〉 〈…〉 we chargeth me neuerthelesse to affirme that 〈◊〉 Cyprian Augustine Ierome and a great ma 〈…〉 are witnesses hereof Pur. 362. wherin he shame 〈…〉 y belyeth mee for that I do onely rehearse parte of 〈…〉 s wordes which affirmeth them to be witnesses 〈…〉 ch thing Bristowe might easily see by the diuersi 〈…〉 of print if he had not beene disposed to â—â—â—under me 〈…〉 er this by the example of Allen which is a great po 〈…〉 I pose the Papistes with this question Why God 〈…〉 uld haue none of the Apostles to put this matter or 〈…〉 e worde thereof in writing which afterward shoulde 〈◊〉 disclosed by Tertullian Cyprian Augustine c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bristow after much bibling out of S. Augustin 〈…〉 e Apostles haue not left in writing the whole order 〈…〉 celebration of the sacraments answereth that one piece of 〈◊〉 that it was omitted by the apostles was for bre 〈…〉 s sake But I Bristow do not speake of any order or 〈…〉 me of ceremonies which because they are variable 〈…〉 cording to times places persons the apostles haue 〈◊〉 prescribed but of the doctrin of praying sacrifising 〈…〉 r the dead which in much lesse bâ—â—uitie then the 〈…〉 stles vsed might haue beene without any tedi 〈…〉 nes let downe at the least in one worde mentioned 〈…〉 herfore breuitie could be no piece of the cause but a 〈…〉 ore miserable refuge of a papist driuen to the wall 〈…〉 r want of a better answere But if this be a piece what is then 〈◊〉 supplemeÌ„t of the whole cause Bristow answereth in these words 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 g. Which 〈…〉 so many â—f 〈…〉 one of â—wspanâ— wâ—â—ld 〈…〉 Do I imagine Bristowe am so greatly 〈…〉 ceiued I follow not mine own imagination but their 〈…〉 ne writing S. Iohn testifieth that those things which 〈◊〉 had written were su 〈…〉 to obtaine euerlasting life 〈…〉 y beleeuing them Io 〈…〉 S. Luke â—â—eweth his purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 th in a 〈◊〉 summe the trueth of all thinges 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 les deliuered concerning the docâ—â—ine 〈…〉 ngs of Christ L 〈…〉 Ac 〈…〉 S. Paul 〈…〉 eth that the holy scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe 〈…〉 prepared to all good workes 2 Tim. 2. But you haue greate reason to proue that they purposed not to put all in writinge because neither so many of them nor o 〈…〉 of them so often would haue meÌ„tioned one thing wh 〈…〉 as contrariwise it is manifest thereby that they studie not so much for breuitie but that they might haue expressed in a word or two prayers sacrifice for that deaâ— seing so manye of them some one so often doeth mention one thing Againe it were againste reason that they shoulde mention one thing so often whicâ— though it be profitable yet it is not necessarie to bee often mentioned to omitte altogether such matten as are necessarie to bee knowne and not in one worde mention them The purpose of the holy ghost that Bristowe doth imagine were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect that the gospels were written onely to shewe Christ to say Consummatum est and al things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him the Actes of the Apostles to shew but as it were the first birth of the Church the Apocalipse to shew the whole course of the Churche to the ende of the worlde The other bookes were written saith he specially against the perfidious Iewes other false maisters of that time As likewise in euerie age afterwarde we haue the Ecclesiasticall I say not the Canonicall writers and councels See you not how the blasphemous dog restraineth the vse of the Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written coÌ„pareth Ecclesiasticall writers and councels with the canonical scriptures If this that he saith were true the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to saluation as S. Paul saith wtout traditions Ecclesiastical writers 2. Tim. 3. Those thinges which S. Paul promiseth to set in order when he commeth 1 Cor. 11. I said must be vnderstood not of doctrine but of ceremonies as the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Bristowe aunswereth that the solemne prayer for the deade in the celebration of the sacrifice is one of Saint Paules ordinances I reply if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contayned Saint Paules writing yea or in any part of the cano 〈…〉 all Scriptures wee would not striue for the forme 〈◊〉 prayer But if wee may adde newe doctrines vpon 〈…〉 ler of the Apostles tradition neither is the Scrip 〈…〉 e so perfect as the holy Ghoste affirmeth it to bee 〈…〉 ther can the
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
life he saith Non tamen tales de quibus dictuÌ„ est quòd regnuÌ„ Dei noÌ„ possidebunt nisi conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remitâ—â—ntur Yet not such of whom it is said that they shal not possesse the kingdome of God except vnto them conueniently repenting the same crimes be forgiuen Here although perhaps you may gather that such persons are not excluded yet can not you inferre that for their great sinnes remitted they should goe thither but for their small sinnes such as he spake of before What the opinion is of him that made the 41. Homilie De Sanctis vnder the name of Augustine it forceth not greatly seeing he doth not expounde thâ—t place 1. Cor 3. as Augustine himselfe doth in many places and yet holdeth that not capitall but small sinnes are purged with that fier 8 Of Limbus Patrum I denied not but Augustine was of opinion that the fathers before Christ were in hell no not in that booke Contr. Feliciam Arrian But I wished his reason to be marked wherefore he counted it blasphemous to say that our sauiours soule was committed to prison in heâ— because the soules of good men are immediatly called to Paradise much more the soule of Christ who commended the same into his fathers hand and promised to be with the theefe the same daie in Paradise To this reason Bristowe aunswereth nothing In the saying of I renaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 33. cited by Allen I said it seemeth the name Adam to be taken for a common name of mankinde But Bristowe wondereth at my blinde ignorance as not knowing that Tatianus against whom Irenaeus writeth denied the saluation of Adam the first man As though it were necessary therefore that Adam in this place must signifie that singular man whereas it is euident that rendring a cause why Saint Luke beginning the genealogie at Christe endeth it in Adam he disputeth first of the mystery of our redemption generally from Christ extending vnto all ages and saith Necesse fuit c. It was necessary that our Lorde comming vnto the lost sheepe and making a recapitulation of so greate a disposition and seeking his owne workemanship to saue euen the same man which was made hiâ— image and similitude that is Adam filling the times of his condemnation which was for disobedience c. I see not what greate blindnesse it is here to take Adam for mankinde as well as the lost sheepe but admitt he meaneth our first parent which I denied not of what skill proceeded it in Allen to interpret these wordes of Christs descending into hell which is the matter there in question when they are manifest of Christs incarnation to saue all mankinde both the Fathers and vs The other place of Irenaeus Lib. 5. almost in the end I saide to ouerthrowe the Popish fantasie of Limbus I might haue added also of Purgatory where Irenaeus affirmeth that Christ after his death went into such a place as all his disciples shall rest in vntill the time of the generall resurrection which was the place where the deade were before Bristowe replyeth he saith not that the disciples shall goe into the same place that Christ went but into an inuisible place c. whereto I answere how is it manifest that they shall goe into such a place but by the example of Christ who went into the place where the deade were And how can the text which he citeth proue it The disciple is not aboue the master if euery disciple should not goe into the same place but as you holde some to a much better some to a worse wheras he speaketh of one inuisible place appointed by God for all the disciples of Christ. And thus an end of al your caueling vpon such places of the Doctours as were cited by me Which how rightly I haue discharged from your manifolde wrangling that the indifferent teader might more throughly perceiue I wish him to compare your cauills with those places of mine which you quote where he shall see that you haue taken greater paines to pick quarrells at me then vsed diligence to defend your Author whose bookes you haue vndertaken to mainteine beside that of euerie ten reasons that I bring against him you haue not touched one The tenth Chapter That notwithstanding all which Fulke hath saide against D. Allens articles in his first Book being of that matter or also in his other of Purgatorie euerie one of my 51. demandes therfore also euery one of my motiues likewise euerie one of those articles standeth stil in his force Euery one I say and much more all of them to make any man to be a Catholike and not a Protestant To Bristowes motiues and demands I haue answered directly purposely in a peculiar treatise that although he dare not ioyne with me in aunswering of Allen directly yet he shal be driuen to defend his owne bragges absolutely or else forsake his challenge shamefully The demonstration that he boasteth of in this Chapter is for the most part nothing else but a quoating of such places where in his replye hee supposeth to haue confuted mine answeres to Allens articles vnto which reply seeing I haue orderly reioyned in euerie point I will not stand to repeate where I haue confirmed euery answer seing this chapter of Bristow may be a sufficient register to al such Chapters partes of Chapters where the same may be fouÌ„d And for such points of his motiues and demaunds whervnto he complaineth that in mine answere to Allens articles I haue saide nothing I must require both him and his readers to haue recourse to my Booke specially written against his saide motiues and demaundes For in aunswering Allen I could not prophecie what argumentes Bristowe would bring in those bookes set forth by him so many yeres after mine answere to Allen was penned But where he hath any argument or authoritie not directly answered before I wil here endeuour to satisfie the same in such plain order as I haue obserued in al the rest of the booke hitherto Omitting therefore the two first demandes of Collatio Carthaginensis and building of the Church in the third of Going out he saith that Against our imagined Church in the wildeâ—nesse we are expresly warned Math. 24 Beholde Christ is in the wildernesse doe not goe out This aunswere as senselesse as it is is borrowed of Stapleton in his demonstration of doctrinall principles which I haue confuted in a breefe aunswere shewing that although we seeke not Christ either in the wildernesse or in the secrete places no not in the Popish pixe but in heauen only yet we are to seeke his pilgrime Churche in what corner of the earth soeuer she be and seeing the holy Ghost hath expresly aâ—sirmed that she should be hidden in the wildernesse from the crueltie of the bloudy Dragon what impudent ignorance or malicious blindnesse is it in Stapleton and Bristowe to say we are warned by Christ neuer to seeke
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
A REIOYNDER to Bristows Replie in defence of Allens scroll of Articles and Booke of Purgatorie Also the cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof CONFVTED BY WILLIAM FVLKE DOCTOR IN DIVINITIE AND Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge Seene and allowed AT LONDON Printed by H. Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1581. To the Christian Reader ALlen the Author of the Popish challenge as it is now confessed and of the Booke of Purgatorie as he alwayes acknowledged finding mine answere to both these treatises so well grounded vpon the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and testimonies of the most ancient writers that albeit he might quarell at many bie matters yet he was not able to auoyd the substance of mine arguments and answeres determined not to aduenture his credite in publishing any replie vnder his owne name and therefore turned ouer the businesse to one Bristowe whose impudence being approued in his Motiues and demaundes was thought more meete to take so desperate a cause in hand Bristowe himselfe on the otherside perceiuing that it was impossible for him to make any shewe of replie that might satisfie any meane witte if hee should followe me orderly and directly from point to point as I haue followed Allen durst not once vndertake that lawfull course of replying which I haue alwayes obserued in answering but by confounding of many diuers matters together hath sought to bring a great mist vpon the cause vnder which hee might rather hide then defende his master Allen and he himselfe like a pretie man nowe and then start out and giue a perilous blowe and so retyre into his cloude againe For this purpose it was not sufficient for him leauing all order of replying to take vpon him the confutation of two books of myne of most diuerse matters in one of his but that the confusion might bee greater and the light of trueth appeare much lesser he must defende two more of his owne So that hauing nowe iumbled together no lesse then sixe treatises in one two of Allens two of mine and two of his owne he thinketh himselfe so well armed with darkenes and confusion that if he cannot haue a conquest yet he may be sure to haue a starting hole to hide himselfe in And first he findeth great fault that his motiues and demaunds which most men for the great follie shewed in thē dispised were not first answered dreming that my books should neuer haue beene put in print but to make a shewe of answere to his motiues and demaunds But how vainely he gesseth mine answere printed to those wodden workes of his doth plainely discouer Of like vanitie and more impudence it is that hee affirmeth constantly that I was faigne to set foorth those bookes without priuiledge albeit I say the one was authorized distinguishing betweene priuiledge and authoritie wherein I know not what the peeuish quareller meaneth For this I am sure that both those bookes had such approbation and license to be printed as al bookes concerning religion ought to haue by the Queenes iniunctions which I call count a sufficient authorizing Concerning priuileging I suppose Bristowe cauelleth because he knoweth not what the name of a priuiledge signifieth for which I will remit him to some lawyer to learne But where I affirmed that my booke was authorised two yeares before it was imprinted he douteth whether he may beleeue my bare word because I write in the same We beleue that the Catholike Church hath no cheefe gouernour vpon earth but Christ vnto whom all power is giuen in heauen in earth But I pray thee Bristow what doth this hinder thee to beleeue me vpon my bare word Thou demandest a question in the margent What if the Church were in England onely or one were King of all Countries sometime where it is I might according to Salomons aduise answere thee according to thy folly deferre my resolution vntill either the Church be in England only or that one were King of all Countries where it is But lest thou shouldst thinke thy self wise in thy folish question I answere that if either of both those cases should come to passe which are both impossible Christ should stil reteine his office and power that he hath in heauen and earth and that one King of England or of many coūtries should haue no more authoritie ouer the Church then the Queene of England now hath ouer that portion of the Church that is in England or ouer all those portions that are in other her seuerall dominions But whereas Bristow saith my former booke commeth forth only by permissiō to make a shew of somewhat for a time if after it chaunce of some Papist to be dasht out of countenance then the shame to be no mans but onely Fulkes I wish the gentle reader to consider two thinges First that he will charge no man with the shame of mine errors if any he can proue but me onely as in deede there is no reason that any man should beare the blame of my folly but my selfe least of al the church of God Secōdly that by quarelling at the want of priuiledge and authorizing of my writinges he acknowledgeth this his owne booke of reply to lacke neither priuiledge nor authoritie so that if I not onely dash it out of countenaunce but also shewe it to be voyde of wisdome learning and trueth the shame shall not be priuate to Bristow alone but cōmon to all the popish faction beyond the sea on this side the same by whose cōmon consent it seemeth to be penned and set foorth Bristows reply is conteined in 13. Chapters to euery of which and to euery part of them as they are intitled by himselfe I will answere in order that they which liste to conferre my Reioynder with his Reply may see I seeke not by confusion to couer any falshood but by orderly proceeding to bring the trueth to light Faultes escaped The first number signifieth the page the last the number of the lines Page 14 line 9 for aid lege ende 15 36 Haeie l. Hovve 16 28 ap l. cap 24 l. 27 28 c read Apotactites Encratites c. 33 23 mortuis l. mortuos 35 31 con 30 l. con 3 37 1 birth l. death 38 24 Constantine l. Constans 41 3 l. Papias 43 17 the l. their 9 sute l. state 45 l. 21 read so I 46 14 ledging l. begging 55 31 erre but l. erre both 65 10 16 l. Peter and Peter 71 30 euer l. euen 76 2 l. 2 Tim 3 80 8 l. consent in the truth 101 17 disputing l. disprouing 109 24 restored l. restrained 137 35 reade sufficiently satisfied 138 33 course l. cause 148 31 l in the blisse 151 16 if l. of 152 29 true l. tree 156 2. vvhot l. vvhotter 25 l. infarced 158 10 l. in vvhich he 20 applied l. replied 174 26 l. peeces 175 Iam
was wrought by them As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh against the Pagans of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr which he would haue me to applie to my disease was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie not to the setting vp or mainteyning thereof And what worshippe I pray you was giuen to the reliques of Babylas If God shewed miracles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne as by the bones of Elizeus yet it followeth not that his body or ashes were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were Concerning inuocation of Angels which they haue common with the Caianes Bristowe sheweth that the Caianes had other greater heresies which the papistes holde not as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser The superstition of Angels that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians and Collossians to beware of hee sayth they be cleare of it because in all their prayers they conclude per Christum c. Through Christ our Lorde as though they that taught the superstition of Angels did cleane exclude Christ or that it was to be doubted lest the Ephesians and Collosians would forsake Christ and cleaue to Angels but rather lest with the religion of Christ as the cheefe they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati bowed downe in the worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith which therefore helde not the heade because they worshipped not him alone but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie That Angels are ministring spirits it proueth not that therefore they must be prayed vnto but the contrarie for inuocation is due onely to him on whome wee beleeue which is God onely So much the more blasphemous is Bristowe that chargeth Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. to haue prayed to the Angels where he sayth Grace and peace bee to you from him that is and was and is to come and from the 7. spirites that are before his throne and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all auncient writers is that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost which is seuen folde in his graces according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him the spirite of wisedome and vnderstanding the spirite of counsell and power c. And it is also euident that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God according to the number of seuen Churches of Asia to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels as some late writers do yet it followeth not that S. Iohn shoulde pray vnto them in those wordes but rather to God for their ministerie to the preseruation of the Churches No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vnto them from heauen it followeth that he prayeth vnto heauen That phrase is often in the Psalmes wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion from the holy Hill from the Temple from heauen and yet no man was so madde to say that prayers was made to Sion to the Hill to the Temple to heauen And yet it is more monstrous that hee chargeth me to forget that in the same booke of the Apocalips God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come and to adore before the feete of one Angell And they shall know that I haue loued thee c. I speak vnto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it Wast thou awake when thou didest pâ—ruse this argument and allowed it Tell me by thy credite is this the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this controuersie Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen is any of those Angels neither whote nor colde in the seruice of God hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade hath any of them left his first loue doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach c Out vpon thine impudence if thou affirme all this and fie vpon thy negligence if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest As for thee Bristowe it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master reproued for thy fault at this time to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast that darest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of the holy scripture against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of 3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate and from marriage Bristow would haue the question of prescript fasting dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one as they are accompted among the Papistes But there is great difference For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes appointed by the church to be obserued did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster teach abstinence from flesh Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse that the Papists haue the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche For on their prescript fasting dayes except for necessitie they did eate neither fish nor flesh nor any thing vntill the euening As for the abstinence from meates against which Iouinian did teach was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues not onely from fleshe but also from fish and wine also as appeareth by Hieronyme con Iouin lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces c. Neither say we this sayth Hieronyme that we deny fishes and the rest of meates if a mans will may be taken in meate but as wee preferre virginitie before marriage so fasting and the spirite before fulnesse flesh Likewise in diuers places he speaketh of the abstinence from wine Furthermore he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie from the Tatianistes Manichees Montanistes If I brought no proofe in that place it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting And that the Manichees in their electes and the Tatianistes in their perfectes allowed not marriage out of Epiphanius Augustine But where I charge the Papistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh Bristowe sayeth I take Richard for Robert because the Aerians abstained from fleshe as the Manichees Tatianistes Montanistes as perteining to the yll god according to the heresie of the Valentinians Admit it were so yet how caÌ„ either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues
of the diuine scripture admonishing vs and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners and we shal come vnto that fire in which of what sort euery mans work is the fire shall trie And as I thinke it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire Although one be Paul or Peter yet he commeth to that fire But they that are such do heare Although thou passe through fire the flame â—hal not burn thee But if any be a sinner like me he shal â—ome in deede vnto that fire as Peter Paul but he shall â—ot so passe through it as Peter Paul More of his geâ—eral purgation of al men and not the damned onely you â—ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo c. Thou seâ—st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life hath neede of purification c. yet saith Bristow that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour there is no word which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely for thus he writeth in the same place Sunt alia c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all in which it doth not falsely accuse him neither can be so excused by his defenders especially coÌ„cerning purgation deliueraÌ„ce and againe after long time the reuolution vnto the same euils of euery reasonable creature I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of euery reasonable creature speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also wherefore it is manifest that Origen erred not only about hell heauen and the purgation of the damned but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument as he doth in scorne There is no such Purgatorie as Origen Carpocrates would haue therefore there is no purgatorie at all But what should Carpocrates come in this title but for a sorie sophisme wheÌ„ we speake of Origen onely Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely it should be thus There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour such as Origens fire is the fire that the papistes would haue therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue Releeuing of the dead by prayer If the dead be not releeued we say quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation And for this saying hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is a purgation either of the man or of the worke Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that whereof hee saith nothing at all euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable I shewed by that of the most auncient writers The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead with inuocations and to redeem them with oyle balme and water and inuocations said ouer their heades as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus Nowe commeth Bristowe and in many needelesse words rehearseth other partes of their heresie with their manner of seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them by a counterfait marriage and baptisme and by anoynting with balme c. concluding that this practise of theirs maketh as much against true baptisme solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead anealing or anoynting c. Likewise might they conclude that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention from that which is the ordinance of God And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention but by the holy scriptures Separating therefore baptisme and marrying which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures from the rest that haue no ground in the same prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters were the inuention of heretikes Howbeit saith Bristowe of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde No was Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much could not see that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt c. Other there be that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing powring on their heads oyle water or the foresaid oyntment with water and with the foresaid inuocations c Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead which they vttered before for the liuing But if the Heracleonites should faile mee I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of the Papistes because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist and especially in his booke de anima That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes Bristow wil not denye But he asketh whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes Howe then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus from that which he hath common with the catholike church I deliuered a rule euen nowe concerning the practise of the Heracleonites Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures but they are found in a disciple of Montanus therfore they stinke of Montanisme Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike there is no mention of prayer for the dead or suffering after this life of the faithfull Last of all Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly that Paracletus the comforter by which he meant the spirite of Montanus had reuealed very often that euery small offence must be punished after this life in that the soule of any except martyrs shall not go immediatly into Paradise but tarie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church Which saying sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by
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 〈…〉
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
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
then in deede sayeth Bristowe â—he day of our Lorde is instant And howe knowe you â—hat For our Lorde Iesus Christe sayeth he will kill â—im with the breath of his mouth What immediatly Bristowe so soone as he is shewed openly will you â—llowe him no time to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signes and wonders shall he be killed before he haue practised all deceite of vnrighteousnes in them that perish to whome God shall â—ende the efficacie of errour that they may beleeue lying that all they which haue not beleeued the trueth but had pleasure in vnrighteoâ—snesse may be condemned This will aske a longer time then three yeares and an halfe of the Sunnes reuolution or 42. months of the Moones circuite It is not one mannes person or age that can suffice to deceiue all them that haue not beleeued the trueth His last conceite in distinguishing the apostasie from the reuealing of Antichrist by the token giuen of the abolishing of the Romane Empire which should come to passe before the reuealing but not before the apostasie because it is his owne drousie imagination without grounde I will not vouchsafe to confute especially seeing the Apostle ver 3. ioyneth the Apostasie and the reuelation immediately together Whether Antichrist or the Apostasie agree to the Protestantes In this title is nothing but surmises wherof he him selfe is vncerteine but for one place in the Apocalipse he would saye vnder the churches leaue that our heresie is the apostasie the place is in the first Vâ— of the Locustes and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9. where somethings agree and other things agree not c. But let him looke on the commentarie of Bullinger Alphonsus Chytraeus Iohn Bale and other and he shal finde a neerer agreement of that kingdome to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts the Monkes and Fryers then he can imagine vnto vs. I passe ouer the abomination of desolation which one while he maketh Luthers and Caluins inuentions another while the kings armes set in place of the moste sweete and glorious roode yea the image of a vile grassehopper in a church that is well knowen which is an vmbraticall desolation as the images of Iupiter and the Emperors were in the temple c. matters to be laughed at although perhaps he lye because he dare not name the church or else is afrayd it should be refourmed if any vaine painter hath set vp such images And yet what more common in Poperye then not onely to paint but also to carue the images of kings and noble mens armes euen vpon the roodeloft of the Churches where they were patrones At last hee challengeth mee to ioyne with him vppon his last demaund which is apostasie vnto which I haue aunswered long since Finally he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist by the commentarie which the scripture it selfe makes The seuen heads are seuen hilles vppon which the woman sitteth And they are seuen kings whereof fiue are falne which are the persecuâ—ing kings before the time when this was spoken What then One is presently who therefore is ment of the Romane Emperors and all other kings persecuting with them The other is not yet come and when he commeth he must remaine a short season who euidently is Antichrist in proper person This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope Nay sayth Bristowe for he must remaine not a long season as the fiue and as the one but a short season only three yeares and an halfe But where haue you the length of his continuance compared with the fiue and one All the time of the Churches persecution is but short in comparison of the infinite comfort that she shal haue euerlastingly though it be long in the iudgement of fleshe and blood measuring the time by the breuitie of mans life and the seasons of this worlde as Bristowe doeth the three yeares and an halfe But this is worthie to be noted that he expoundeth the sixt king for the whole state of Romane Emperors and other persecuting kings as he doeth the fiue kings that were past and yet against all reason and analogie wold haue the seuenth which is antichrist to be one singular man so to auoide that the whole rabble of Popes cannot be antichrist Nowe followeth the exposition of the tenne hornes which are tenne kings which haue not yet taken kingdome but they shall take power as kinges euen in one houre with the beast that is together with Antichrist sayth he to serue him as his feede knights I maruell whether he will not expound the houre in this place for the 24. part of a naturall daye For otherwise wee see by histories that the aduauncement of the Pope was the decay of the Empire in the West and with him arose a multitude of kings in euery prouince which before were subiect to one Emperour And so you see euidently sayth Bristowe by these seuen hilles thus expounded that the woman which sitteth vpon them is not so little a one as you do make her but that shee is Mundus impiorum the whole worlde of wicked men But where do we see this euident exposition of the seuen hilles wee haue seene the exposition of the seuen heades to bee seuen kings and also seuen hills but we see no exposition of the hills who must needs be taken in their proper sense because they are the exposition of anotheâ— figuratiue speach namely seuen heades But the woman you say is no little one which sitteth on the seuen hilles but the worlde of wicked men Let the holye ghost I pray you expounde the woman as well as the heades of her beast And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth This is a cleare exposition of the whore of Babylon the woman and as cleare a description of the citie of Rome which in that time had the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth and is the citie builded vppon seuen hilles before expounded to be one of the significations of the seuen heades a persecuter of the sainctes vnder the Emperors and a poisoneâ— and persecutor of the Church vnder the Popes And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition which I will prooue by this reason The whore of Babylon is a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kings of the earth but the whole worlde of wicked men is not a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kinges of the earth therfore the whore of Babylon is not the whole worlde of wicked men Againe The whore of Babylon is a citie situated vpon seuen hilles The whole worlde of wicked men is not a citie situate vppon seuen hils therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men The third part Concerning the question of purgatorie and first ab authoritate scripturae negatiuè I saide Purg. 44â— It is no good logike to conclude negatiuely of any one place or booke of scripture yet
â—ontrarie to mine owne rule Bristow saith I conclude â—egatiuely out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth â—one other comfort to moderate the mourning of the faithfull but onely the quiet rest of them that are asleepe in the Lord and the hope of their glorious resurrecâ—ion ergo there is no comfort in praying for their soules 〈◊〉 aunswere mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen which citeth that place to prooue that as immoderate mourning is against the hope of the resurrectioÌ„ so being ioyned with praiers and almes it hath the liuely hope of life in those that sleepe in peace This aduantage Bristowe hath by rending and tearing mine argumentes from the bodie of my booke that it cannot bee perceiued vppon what ground I vse them Neuerthelesse hauing often before in that aunswere to Allen protested that hee coulde bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the deade this argument is to be referred to the same conclusion after this manner If in most conuenient place the holy ghost â—oyne not prayer and almes to moderate mourning for the departed then doeth he ioyne them in no place but in most coÌ„uenient place he ioineth not ergo in no place The maior is prooued by the wisedome of Gods spirit which alwayes choseth that which is most conuenient the minor is manifest and granted ergo the conclusion is true But Bristowe asketh me if I preaching to moderate the mourning of the faithfull vse none other comfort then these two I answere him concerning the state of the departed I vse none other proper places of coÌ„fort but these two the hope of their glorious resurrection their quiet rest in the meane time But S. Paul saith Bristowe speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death although he name them that are asleepe in the Lorde If they sleepe in the Lord they are not onely at rest but in happinesse Can you interprete to sleepe in the Lord to be in hellish torments such as you faine your purgatorie paines to be Are they not blessed which die in the Lord The Prophet Esay saith cap. 57. of the righteous after their death that there shal be peace they shall rest in their beddes Ergo they that sleepe in the Lord enioy a quiet rest The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul reherseth what he receiued and deliuered concerning the sacrament but oblation for the dead he rehearseth noâ— ergo he neither receiued nor deliuered it So you make sayth Bristowe as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he sayeth afterwarde of setting other things in order I answere that obiection is auoided in the same place immediatly after Pur. 362. therefore I will not here repete the answere And that it is not of one place negatiuely you your selfe here confesse that I denye it to be written by any of the Euangelistes which entreat of the sacrament But you are not ashamed to affirme that the Apostle intended no more in that place but to correct the sinne of vnworthie receiuing vppon coulot of a place of Augustine Ep. ad Ian. 118. Cap. 3. Inde enim For that respect the Apostle also sayeth that they receiue it vnworthily who do not by a reuerence singularly dewe discerne it from other meates as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently considered Doth Augustine say or can any man proue out of his saying that he ment that S. Paul intended no more but to correct the sinne of the vnworthie receiuing But admitt it were so how could he better correct that sinne then by shewing the whole institution substantiall matter and fourme ende and vse of that sacrament and so he doth although ceremonies and externall obseruations about it he doth not expresse The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer 19. which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diuerse other ordinances concerning the dead in which was no sacrifice or prayer for the dead was offred but that they were so separated from the liuing that the priestes might haue nothing to do with them but in speciall cases Bristowe sayeth I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buryed In â—eede so to conclude were to conclude of one place â—egatiuely but I presuppose my former assertion that â—n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead no not in those which conteine â—peciall order for the dead I adde further that the â—riest to whoÌ„ specially offering of sacrifice perteineth â—s so separated from the dead that he is forbidden to â—ourne for them much more to offer sacrifice for theÌ„ â—r to pray for them which can not be without lamenâ—ation for their miserable estate c. From these particular places I come to the whole â—awe and conclude negatiuely thus All lawfull sacriâ—ices were prescribed by the lawe Sacrifice for the dead â—as not prescribed by the lawe therfore it was no lawâ—ull sacrifice The answere he sayth is by returning it â—ppon my selfe but in deede hee maketh it by denying â—he minor affirming that sacrifice for the dead was preâ—cribed vnder the name of sacrifice for sinne I might â—ere reply out of your owne doctrine that not the â—uiltinesse but the paine of sinne is in many to be purâ—ed which haue obteyned remission of all their sinnes â—ither by Popes pardon or priestes absolution or by â—ods forgiuenesse vnto the penitent But I will folâ—owe the argument I shewed that the forme of sacrifice â—as such as could not be offered but of the liuing or â—or the liuing because they are commaunded in all saâ—rifice for sinne generally to lay their hand vppon the head of the beast to be sacrificed Hereunto Bristowe replyeth that this grosse absurditie would follow that â—acrifice for sinne could not be offered but of theÌ„ that were present therefore not for the children the sicke â—or captiues for kings and cities of the world vncircumâ—ised and diuerse other sortes I reioygne that no sacriâ—ices for sinne but sacrifices of thanksgiuing or prospeâ—ities coulde be offred for the absent and especially for the vncircumcised which could not haue remission of sinnes before they were ingraffed into the people of God but temporall benefites at the prayers of Gods people they might obteine As for children sicke captiues c. they might haue remission of sinnes without sacrifice which was but the Sacrament thereof as well in their childhoode sickenesse captiuitie when they coulde not offer according to the lawe as in time of desolation and destruction of the Temple when no sacrifice for sinne coulde be offered by any or for any but onely in the place where the tabernacle or temple was Wherefore the sacrifice of Iudas Machabaeus wheresoeuer hee learned it hath no warrant iâ— the law The fourth argumeÌ„t of the whole scripture negatiuely to conclude I saide it is good logike after this manner
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
and other cited in diuerse places of my booke These places he saith are but bare names But when we come to expounding of these places we shall finde eyther reason or auctority of these Doctors for vs. In the meane time we will consider Hieronyme whom Bristowe saith that I confesse to haue allowed prayers for the deade Wherein he saith vntruly for I neuer confessed simply that he allowed prayers for the deade But Pur. 194. I saide interrogatiuely and by waie of concession Howe hapeneth it that Chrysostome and Hieronyme which both interpreted that place could gather no such matter although they otherwise allowed prayer for the deade And indeede in so many bookes of Hieronyme nothing can be found whereby it may be proued that he allowed prayer for the deade although it were a common error of many in his time And in this place cited in the decrees by Gratia◠139. 2. he simply denieth that any prayers are profitable for the deade The place in deede as Bristowe saith is in his Comment vpon Gal. 6. although he in exposition allude to 2. Cor. 5. we must all appeare before the iudgment seate of Christe But the answere of this place of Hierome Bristowe saith I might learne of the glose which expoundeth it of them that die without repentaunce only but in deede it is spoken generally of all men As the very wordes declare vpon this texte Euery one shall beare his owne burthen Videtur superioribus contrair◠vbi ait c. He seemeth to goe against the former sentence where he sayth Beare the burthens one of an other For if euerie one shall beare his owne burthen one cannot beare the burthens of an other But we must consider that there he commanded that we which cōmit sinne should in this life helpe one an other and in this present worlde should be an aide one to an other but here hee speaketh of the iudgment of the Lorde vpon vs that not of other mens sinn or of comparison of the worser but according to our own worke we shal be iudged of him either sinners or holy euery one receiuing according to his owne worke Obscurè licet doce 〈…〉 r per han◠sententiolam nouum dogma quod latitat We are taught by this short sentence though darkely a newe doctrine or opinion whiche lyeth hidde that while we are in this present worlde we may helpe one another either by prayers or by counsels but when we shall come before the iudgement seate of Christe that neither Iob nor Dauid nor Noe can intreate for any man but that euerie one doth beare his owne burthen That which Hierome speaketh of himselfe and of all other that prayers can not auaile them beeing out of this world when the glose restreyneth onely to them that die in mortall sinne without repentance it is as good as the olde iest Statuimus id est abrogamus It is also worthy to be considered that Hierome as it seemeth against the errour of his time calleth this a newe doctrine which he gathereth of that sentence That the moste auncient doctours doe not interprete the Scriptures by name against Purgatorie I said it was because Purgatorie in their time was neither heard nor named Bristowe replyeth that I confessed Cap. 3. that the olde doctours heard both the name and the thing c. Thus he chargeth me still with confessions falsely For although Augustine heard of the name of Purgatorie whereof he sometimes doubteth sometimes denyeth all places but two yet no writer before him Neither were prayers for the dead heard in the Churche before the heresie of Montanus But to returne to Hierome whom I saide in Eccle. 11. to expound the North and South not for the states of grace and wrath but for the places of rewarde or punishment Bristowe sayeth of both But I denie that he speaketh of the state of grace in that sort that Allen meaneth namely that any man so dieth in the state of grace that he obteineth release of punishment after this life which is the matter in question but that Bristowe is disposed to cauill For although a man in this life may be remoued out of the North into the South yet when the tree is fallen there is no more remouing by Hieroms iudgement Wheresoeuer thou preparest thee a place and a seate hereafter whether it be in the South or in the North there when thou art dead thou shalt continue This whiche the Doctor speaketh expressely of a place a seate of euerlasting continuance Bristow for want of a better answere expoundeth of merite as though it might stande with Hieronyms authoritie that the place might be changed although the merite can not be bettered Touching scriptures for Purgatorie and prayer for the dead whether the Doctours say No Scripture to make for it I said that Tertullian confesseth that oblations prayers for the dead were not taken of the scriptures but of tradition Bristow in diuers places denieth any such confession of Tertullian restraining his meaning to an onely ceremonie of oblation and prayers on the yeares day of their departure as though oblation and prayer for the dead generally were clearly taught in the scriptures which thing if it be why doth not Allen or Bristowe or any writer yong or olde bring one place out of the canonicall Scriptures allowing prayer and oblation for the deade and as touching Tertullian his wordes are such as with no equity may be restrained to so particular a ceremonie Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annua die facimu◠We make oblations for the deade for the day of mens byrth on the yearly daie If Oblationes pr◠natalitiis be not founde in the Scriptures at all neither on the yearly daie nor any other daie Why saie we not the like of Oblationes pro desunctis Againe why maie it not be that the yearly day of celebration is meant only of mens byrth and oblations for the deade left at larg◠for to celebrate the yearly festiuity of mens birth was vsual among the Gentiles euery man for himselfe But to obserue the yearely day of al mens death were infinite either for their friends or for the Priests to doe Wherefore it remaineth that oblations for the dead what soeuer they were in Tertullians time were not taken of the Scriptures And if they were Masse and prayers for the dead as the Papistes say Masse and prayers for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures by Tertullians confession The contradictions that he layeth to me I alwayes reserue to their peculiar Chapter Augustine also denyeth a third place to be found in the Scriptures D◠Verb. Apost ser. 14. Contra Pelagian Hyp. lib. 5. And De Verb. Apostol Ser. 33 For praying for the dead he alledgeth the tradition of the fathers which he is not wont to doe where scripture doth not faile him Epiphanius likewise against Aerius bringeth no Scripture but the custome and tradition of the Churche in naming the dead in their prayers
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
it may be found out or remaine hid that some faithfull men by a certaine Purgatorie fire by how much more or lesse they haue loued perishing goodes to be saued sooner or later yet not such of whoÌ„ it is saide that they shall not possesse the kingdome of GOD except the same crimes be remitted to them conueniently repenting Bristowes answere is that there are two Purgatorie fires the one to punish soules for sinne wherof S. Augustine is certaine the other not to punish sinne but onely to weare out by little little such affections to worldely lawfull thinges as to wiue c. that without griefe of minde he cannot parte from them so as the other which builded Golde c. whereof Augustine is vncertaine Afterwarde he concludeth they are two operations of one Purgatorie the one to purge sinne with punishment the other to purge worldly lawfull affections If there be but one Purgatorie fire Augustine doubteth not onely of the punishment but of the purging fire But Augustine speaketh not of purging lawfull affections for what purgation should there neede where no vnlawful thing is to be purged But of vnlawfull affections of worldly lawfull thinges which are loued so farre aboue measure that they cannot be lost for Christes sake without greefe these Cupiditates greedie desires Augustine calleth the wood Strawe and stubble which is builded vpon the foundation Christ vpon whome it is sinne to builde any thing but Golde Siluer or pearles c. 1. Cor. 3. so that it is sinne that Augustine speaketh of Whereof he doubteth whether it is purged by a Purgatorie fire after this life Againe vtterly excluding impenitent sinners from hope of this purging fire it is manifest that of penitent sinners he maketh this doubt whether they may be saued by this Purgatory fire after their death Wherfore Bristows distinction is cleane contrary to Augustines meaning Likewise wher he maketh a doubt whether such worldly lawful affections remain in the soules of the elect departed as loue of wife c. he shamefully slaundereth Saint Augustine as though he helde any such opinion when no such thing can be gathered out of his wordes falsifying to his purpose the Doctors wordes which are Rerum secularium quamuis licitè concessarum tales cupiditates Such greedy desires of worldly although things lawfully graunted to call them such worldly lawfull affections whereas Augustine saith not that such affections are lawfull but that the worldly things are lawfull on which such affection is sett Likewise Ad Dulci quaestion prima he bringeth for example a certaine carnall affection towarde riches a cogitation of those things which are of this worlde how a man should please his wife c to be this wood haie c. and likewise doubtfully concludeth whether therefore in this life only men suffer these things or whether certaine such iudgments followe after this life c. excluding againe murderers fornicators lyers periurers c. The like doubt he maketh De Ciuit. Dei Lib 21. Ca. 26. saying that peraduenture it is true that this purging fier is in this lite onely peraduenture after this life onely or both in this life and after but yet for all men to passe through the perfect without sense they that are entangled with these veniall sinnes with sense of paine and losse c. But Augustine saith Bristowe sheweth himselfe certeine of purging paines De Ciuitate Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 24. saying it is certeine that such men are purged before Doomesday by temporall paines c. As for this place being not founde in many auncient written coppies as Viues sheweth seemeth to be a corrupted place added by other not written by Augustine The like may be suspected of the place Cap. 13. of the same Booke where he reporteth what he had said before of remitting sinnes in the worlde to come which yet is not to be founde in that Booke as for the places of Enchirid. Cap. 110. and Ad Dulc. 〈◊〉 2. which he quoteth haue nothing but of praiers for the dead Wherfore Augustine although he allowed prayer for the dead to auaile them remaining in secret receptacles as he termeth them Enchirid. Cap. 109. yet he was not certeine of Purgatory Touching inuocation of Saints which I confessed Augustine to allowe according to the error of his time and prayers to be profitable for the deade I said Pur. 317. that Augustine is full of doubts and questions in the matter and first whether the mothers supplication to the Martyr profited her sonne Augustine said that did profite him buried in the holy place if any thing profited Whereof I gathered that he speakeâ—h doubtfully Bristow crieth out that I am past all shame for Augustiue neuer doubted whether such supplication might profitte but whether the mother had any such cogitation I aunswere he doubted at least whether such kinde of supplication did profite or no for the doubt of her cogitation was expressed before in an other condition Si quidem credidit if she beleeue c. But to refell my impudencie as it should seeme he hath heaped vp a sorte of places to proue that Saint Augustine clearely affirmed supplication to Saints to profitte the deade first Non inaniter fiunâ— they be not made in vaine Cap. 1. But these wordes are not in that Chapiter He saith there Neque Ecclesia inaniter Neither the Church nor the frendes care for the deade bestoweth in vain such deuotion as it can where he speaketh of prayers for the deade but not of supplication to the Martyrs Secondly he citeth Prosunt quibusdam mortuis they profitte one sort of the deade Cap. vlt. but neither are there such wordes nor for such purpose Thirdly Non sunt praetermittende they must not be omitted Câ— 4. also Fiunt recta fide ac pietate they be made with right faith and pietie Cap. 4. These wordes in deede are there but of prayers for the deade generally although there also in the same Chapiter to his purpose which he noteth not last of all Religiosus amicus c. they be necessary the deuout frend must in no case omitte them Ca. 5. the necessarie supplications he speaketh of are prayers generally not that prayer to Saintes are of him called necessarie supplications But vnto all the other doubtes which I in the place aboue quoted had noted out of that treatise of Augustine Bristowe speaketh not a worde Whether S. Augustine denied Purgatorie Bristowe rehearseth my wordes with such fidelitie as is vsuall to Papistes as though I had saide that Saint Augustine denied Purgatorie by the name of Purgatorie whereas my wordes are that he seemeth to deme all other receptacles of the soules departed beside heauen and hell But of a third place saith he we are altogether ignorant neither do we finde it in the holie Scriptures Hypog Cont. Pel De Verb. Apost Ser. 14. Bristowe sayeth I answere it my selfe in saying he writeth against the Pelagians that imagined a third place for the
said not If Bristowe will say that none from Paganisme were conuerted to Christianitie by the Nouatians Donatistes or other heretikes I wil see what I haue in store to proue it The conuersion of the Moscouites by the Grecians Bristowe asketh whether it were before their schisme or after and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation and not in time of their schisme I reade the conuersion of the Moscouites to haue ben into the Greekish forme of Christianitie An. Do. 987. Ioachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo about which time the controuersie of the proceeding of the holy Ghost began to arise but long before the Greeke Church refused subiection to the Church and Pope of Rome which if you call but an emulation you ouerthrow the rocke of your owne religion breake off the band of your vnitie which you affirme to coÌ„sist only in subiection to the Romish bishop In the 11. Demaund of Brittanie where I saide the Actes of the Apostles is the best monument to shewe into what faith as well this Island as all other nations were conuerted by the Apostles Bristowe asketh Whether the Actes of the Apostles were written to shewe into what faith all nations were conuerted that were turned by the Apostles Yea verily they were written to shewe that the Apostles preached the same faith vnto the Iewes and Gentiles which they receiued of Christ according to the holie Scriptures and thereof the bâ—oke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the practise of the Apostles according to such instruction as thei receiued of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to any nation of the Gentiles There is mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to the Iewes and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles although it was neither possible nor needfull nor conuenient that they should all twelue in person goe to euery nation But what faith so euer any one preached to any nation the same did they all preach without difference in euerie nation that they conuerted There is not one of the articles of the Creede necessarie to saluation but it is to be proued by the Actes of the Apostles that they did preach it But Bristowe wil tell vs an other cause why that booke was written No sir saith he that booke was written to shewe onely the beginning of the Church according to the prophets to wit at IerusaleÌ„ among the Iewes and the taking of it from them for their deserts and giuing it to the Gentiles euen from Ierusalem the head of the Iewes to Rome the head of the Gentiles If this were the only purpose of the Euangelist as Bristowe most impudently affirmeth he should haue spared much labour in setting foorth the sermons and summe of the doctrine which the Apostles preached both to the Iewes and Gentiles But let vs heare Bristowe goe forward And there Saint Luke endeth it not caring to tell so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paule in whose person this translation was wrought and not in S. Peters for causes too long to be here rendered Thou must stand before the Emperor Because his purpose was no more but to shewe the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so to leade them to it to knowe what are the particulars that the Apostles taught If this be true all the testimonie and report that he maketh of their doctrine was beside his purpose yea the historie of the gospell which he writ of all things that Iesus beganne to do and teach was out of this purpose And he tooke the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus to teach him the certaintie of those things wherof he had bene instructed as Saint Luke him selfe had receiued of the Apostles them selues whereas according to Bristowes imaginatiue purpose seeing there had ben manie writings of the gospel alreadie he should haue sent him home to the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so haue left him to it to knowe what are the particulars the Apostles taught But where on gods name learne wee that whore of Babylon that sitteth vpon the seuen hilles Apoc. 17. to be this newe Ierusalem on earth when S. Paul Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly Ierusalem vnto the heauenly IerusaleÌ„ which is aboue and is the mother of vs all not to an other Ierusalem on earth and that the mother of all abhominations of the earth Apoc. 17. And howe falleth it out that S. Luke hauing a purpose so long and certainely continued and so necessarie for the Church not in one word commendeth to vs this newe Ierusalem on the seuen hils nor in one word maketh mention of that which only changeth if any thing can chaunge hell into heauen Rome into Ierusalem namely the translation of Peters chaire or his person or the least haire of his head or thred of his garment to Rome But this belike is reserued among the Apocriphal causes as these are why the translation was in the person of S. Paule and not of S. Peter Where I required one of those nations to whome the Apostles preached purgatorie or praier for the dead to be named out of the Actes of the Apostles Bristowe answereth continuing his former speach And so withall you haue one of those nations named and that no common one to wit the Romanes which receiued of the Apostles not only that article you require but all the rest which at this time it hath c. When this is shewed out of the Actes of the Apostles or any other Canonical scripture I am answered Where I require it to be proued that the same Apostle which first conuerted Britanie taught praiers or sacrifice for the deade Bristowe answereth If you require vs to proue it out of the Scripture considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conuersion you declare your selfe to be but a pratler At the least wise you declare that you cannot proue it out of the scriptures But we can proue out of the scriptures euery article that we beleeue to haue bene taught by that Apostle or Apostolike man whosoeuer first preached the saith of Christ in this lande although our landes conuersion be not by name mentioned in scripture Yet seeing the doctrine of euerie one of the Apostles was the same that is expressed in the scriptures we are able to proue that he preached the same which we beleue considering that we beleue al that is written in the holy scriptures As for the confirmation of Eleutherius which Bristowe saith was an accomplishing of that which was begun by the Apostles Romanes if he meane of a supply of doctrine it is false for Christianitie hauing bene in Brittanie planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius and continued more then a 100. yeares before Eleutheâ—ius was perfect Christianitie To passe ouer that peâ—ke of troubles in which Bristow placeth me because I do
Marke in his greeke writing vseth that word Eppheta I answere more liuely to expresse the miracle of Christ yet doth he it not without interpretation Likewise Saint Iohn in his Apocalipse vseth Amen and Alleluia wordes whose signification was as commonly knowne to all Christians as their owne mother language What is this to iustifie the vse of that word in baptisme which neither Marke nor Iohn speake of But it was vsed in the time of Ambrose So were other needlesse matters yet was it vsed to them that vnderstoode the whole office or seruice of baptisme in latine Augustine saith it was not lawfull for any Barbarian or Latine man to translate the words Amen Alleluia which al nations do singe in the Psalmes into his owne language For thus he coteth De doct Chri. lib. 2. cap. 11. inter Epist. 174. but in neither of theÌ„ do I finde any such matter Certaine it is that Augustine doth giue the signification of them both in latine Of the Marcionistes I said they learned to giue womeÌ„ leaue to baptise Bristow saith we doe our selues therein by order of our booke as much as they doe but he is deceiued there is no permissioÌ„ in the booke for women to baptise Touching the necessitie of baptisme we haue spoken before cap. 6. Finallie I saide the Papistes are Pelagians for holding free will and merites of workes as they did not predessination and grace as S. Augustine did Bristow citeth Hierom. Cont. Pela saying that it was the heresie of the Manichees to take away free will So it was in deede to affirme that the wil of man was inforced or constreined But that the will of man is free from the thraldome of sinne and hath power to merite without grace or with grace more easily it was the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine in whole bookes written against theÌ„ doth declare But August Epist. 46. saith That by the grace of God a wicked man may be made a iust one and so may begin to haue good merites which God shal crown wheÌ„ the world shal be iudged I answere by merites he meaneth workes and not desertes for else how saith he elsewhere in Ps. 101. diuers places beside that God crowneth his giftes and not our merites where he vseth the name of merites for desertes where I saide the papistes colour Pelagianisme with their distinctioÌ„ De congruo condigno Bristow saith we do like hypocrites conceale before the people the distinction of merites before grace and after grace for they hold that a man cannot merite the grace of God De congruo without Gods healpe although they haue no resolute warrant to call the contrarie Pelagianisme or heresie And why haue you no warant for reare you should condeÌ„ne diuers of your cheife pillers the scholemeÌ„ for heretikes which hold contrary to that you hold and yet you all hold that a man may dispose him selfe vnto a certaine aptnes to receiue the grace of God by the power of his free will Where I said God is as much bound to congruitie as to condignitie Bristow saith I immagine that if God do not that which is coÌ„gruous he doth against coÌ„gruitie Now good sir saith he It is coÌ„grue to his mercie to saue the simple that are out of the Church which is not coÌ„gruus to his iustice But good sir I pray you dispute not so of congruine that you oppose Gods mercie to his iustice there is nothing congrue to hismercie which is not coÌ„grue to his iustice for vnto whoÌ„soeuer he wil shew mercie he hath receiued for them satisfaction to his iustice in the person of Christ yet Bristow hath another example for condignitie For God to saue al the world it is condigne to the merites of Christ yet he damneth innumerable because it is condigne to their owne merites By this it may be inferred that God yeeldeth not to the merites of Christ so much as they deserue because the merites of many men doe hinder as though the merites of al men do not deserue daÌ„nation of coÌ„dignitie then what cause is this why God giueth not to Christs merites so much as they are worthie to receiue because many deserue damnation This foolish sophistrie riseth by reasoning from possibilitie of Christes worthynesse to the acte of mens worthynesse But compare acte with acte and God saueth all his elect for the worthynesse of the merites of Christ by his mercie and damneth all the reprobate for the worthinesse of their sinne by his iustice of predestination denied by the papistes as it is defended by S. Augustine Bristow speaketh neuer a word In the 39. demaund which he calleth Inconfessed heretikes onely where I answering to the question of Allen Pur 421. 422. with an other question or demaunde why it was reueiled first to the Arrians in councell that the article of Christes descent into hell was meete to be added to the Creede which was not in anie symbole before Bristowe first surmising as his manner is that which was neuer thought of at last confesseth this article to be added in an Arrian Creede Theodor. Lib 2. cap. 21 affirming that it was before that in the Apostles Creede but thereof he bringeth no proofe nor witnesse The iudgement of the scriptures and not of mens opinions argueth heresies Let the writinges of the Apostles trie whether of vs is departed from the doctrine of the Apostles In the 40. demaunde which he termeth They neuer afore now Where I saide we agree with the most ancient fathers in the cheefe and most substantiall articles of faith Bristowe saith I confesse his purpose For Vigilantius Iouinianus c. did much more agree with them in such articles yet were not of their church could not be and would not be How proue you that Vigilantius was not of the Church or woulde not be although he dissented from Hierom As for Iouinian although we hold no part of his assertion in manner as he helde yet his error was not so great that he might not be saued with it Fewe of those fathers but had as great errors as that It seemeth you would haue no man to be of the ancient Church except he agree with the ancient fathers in al their errors if it be proued out of the holy scripture that Hierom erred in that wherein he dissented from Vigilantius why is heto be allowed in that error more then in other thinges wherein he and other of those antient fathers erred Where I doubt whether Apostolici in S. Bernardâ— time were slaundered Bristow saith it is a poore and fowle shifte because Bernard himselfe is witnes against them as though it were not possible that Bernard might be deceiued by missâ—information of them that enuied such kinde of men as they were Where I say it is certaine that Panperes de Lugduno were slaundered Bristow saith I proue it not They proue it themselues being now and long since openly knowne to haue continued in their vnitie from the time of
succession being a grosse error I will not stand to confute because it is none of the principall matters in controuersie Where I saide that if succession of persons and places were sufficient the Greeke Church is able to name as many as the Latine Church and in as orderly succession Ar. 27. Bristowe asketh what of that but onely this that they therefore may better claime the Church than we Yes this one thing more that by this my shewing of succession in the Greeke Church which you can not denie Allen is bound to recant and that the Greekes by title of succession may claime the Church as well as you But those hereticall and schismaticall Greekes saith Bristowe can no more shewe succession than your false Bishops which are in the sees of Poole Bonner Thirlby c and yet I â—roâ—e he will not thereby claime succession We may by as good right as you claime succession to the Apostles and godly Bishop of Rome whome you succeede not in doctrine For neither haue you any right succession but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church Boniface the third and his fellowes But Gregorie saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Church of Rome But so doth not the Councels of Constantinople which before Gregories time decreed that the Church of Constantinople should be equall in all thinges with the Church of Rome the title of senioritie onely reserued because Constantinople was newe Rome Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop 1. ca. 2. c. In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolike see where I say it auaileth not the Papistes that the Church was planted at Rome by the Apostles except they can proue succession of doctrine as well as of men Bristowe saith In prouing the succession of men only we do as much as the Fathers did But I say that is false for the fathers alledge succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding In the 45 Demaund of chaunging where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge witnessing that Gregorie was the first that compelled Priestes to liue vnmarried Bristowe answereth that seeing I confesst that he reuoked his error he made no change froÌ„ his fathers faith Yes sir although he reuoked his decree yet was the same receiued by them that came after him But the storie of that Epistle is derided by Cope which affirmeth that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. yeares before Vdalrichus was made Bishop Thus these impudent Papists when they can neither corrupt nor wrest to their purpose the monuments of antiquitie they will vtterly denie them Whereas the Papists contrarie to the old vsage of the Church by Allens confession doe absolue before satisfaction Bristowe saith both manners haue bene alwaies vsed and bringeth example of men absolued iâ— sicknesse which if they recouered performed their satisfaction after But Papistes absolue them that are in health before satisfaction which is contrarie to the old vsage Where I tell them that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregorie and Stephanus of Formosus Bristowe saith not one Pope hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine It were hard for him to proue that none of those Popes all whose actes their successors disanulled made any decrees of doctrine And certaine it is that Gregorie made decrees of doctrine or else the Popes Canon lawe doth lie al whose decrees yea and bookes also as containing heresie his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned But supposing saith he that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite both in opinion and in some secrete writing yet did he not change nor go about to change the Romanes into Monothelites What meant he then to write hereticall Epistles but to drawe other into his heresie Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople plainely discouer him to the Councel that he followed that heretikes minde in all things and confirmed these vngodly opinions Con. Constantin 6. Action 13. And to what end but betwene them to change the faith of the whole Church both of the East and of the West into Monothelitisme But that you may see a plaine contradictorie vnto Bristowes bolde and lying affirmation I will rehearse the wordes of Pope Leo the second in his Epistle vnto the same Councel Act. 18. Pariterque anathematizamus c. Also we accurse the inuentors of the newe error c. naming them among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolike Church with doctrine of Aposto like tradition but by prophane treason did go about to ouerthrowe the immaculate faith Yet against al this testimonie of antiquitie Sander in his Monarchie proueth that Honorius was no Monothelite and that Iohn 22. did not as Caluine and we belie the storie denie the immortalitie of the soule and resurrection of the bodie neither was any such thing laide against him by his contentious enimies but whether the soules doe see God before the generall resurrection but he also denied that error c. To this I must needes say that Bristowe is either an ignorant reporter or an impudent lier except he will say that Caluine or some of vs wrote the report of the Councel of Constance where he was accused and conuicted by witnesse to haue denied the mortalitie of the soule and the resurrection of the body and life euerlasting Session II. And in the next Session he confessed that the Councel of Constance was most holie and could not erre As for the assertion of Pope Ioane the feminine Pope I referre the reader to Maister Iewels replie to Harding where he proueth it by auncienter testes than Martinus Polonus howe so euer Bristowe sawe it in a marginall note I wot not where not in what Protestantes hand as he reporteth In the sixe and fourtie Demaund of our auncetors saued or damned he maruelleth where my wit was when I alledged against Canonization the example of burning Hermannus the heretike in Ferraria where he was worshipped twentie yeares Apocryphally But if he had not bene canonized as you say where was the Popes care of the Church that so neare him in Italie he would suffer such grosse idolatrie so long time to be committed and continued Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negatiue the affirmatiue that he was canonized which so long had bene worshipped without contradiction is more probable seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any vngodly vsage so long to be vncontrolled Where I saide the Papistes can not proue that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles principall Martyrs Bristowe asketh if making of holie daies and to name them in diptychis among Saintes in the holy Canon of the Masse is not proofe sufficient of their canonization No sir if that be canonization which your late Canons and practise doth allowe but if it were I say the Apostles and principal Martyrs had daies of remembrance of their godly life and doctrine names
in the tables and at the celebration of the Lordes supper before canonization was thought to pertaine onely to the Pope As for our abrogating of Saintes dayes doth not disproue our Communion with the Saintes which is in consent of their faith not in celebrating of their feastes Concerning the canonization of King Henrie the sixt Bristowe requireth mine authour for a dilatorie plea because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption Mine authour is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henrie the seuenth where I said we acknowledge those to be Saintes whose names are written in the booke of life Bristowe like a blacke dogge scoffeth at it and saith we might doe well to set out that booke in print that they might correct their Calender by it Or else the Churches declaration is the most certaine way to knowe who are written in it If none should be written but such as the Pope doth canonize for that is your Churches declaration innumerable Papistes should haue no place therein and not onely Papistes but the true Saintes of God of whome not one among tenne thousand hath bene canonized Where I say the Popish Church doth iniurie to the Saintes of God that she doth not so account them while they liue Bristowe saith I would be called Saint Fulke by mine owne industrie and that out of hande Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scornes to delude the textes of Scripture which I cited to proue that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saintes euen in this life not by their owne industrie and merites but by the sanctification of the bloud of Christ. He is angrie that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their Goddes saying wee doe the like in canonizing our selues because wee account our selues Saintes and true Christians which is all one and because I shewe the emulation of the Bohemians in solemnizing the memories of Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage which differeth as much from Popish canonization as their faith and religion differeth from Poperie In the 47. Demand of cōmunion of Saints he boasteth of increase of Papists in England affirming that beside thē which are Catholike in heart and of their communion there be innumerable of them reconciled which he saith to prepare the minds of his friendes vnto their intended massacre and rebellion I suppose in deede there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors but yet not so many but they may be numbred But howe many so euer they are I doubt not but there are Christians of such number and power in England as are able to giue all the Papistes both on this side the sea and beyond it as blacke a day as the Popes armie found in Ireland if euer they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable deuises In the 48. Demaund where I shewe the fruites of the Gospell being vrged thereto by Allen Pur. 241. to appeare notably in the liberall prouision for the poore of all sorts in England and namely in the citie of London Bristowe calleth it beastly impudencie yet is he not able to name any Popish citie that maketh such prouision but falleth into open railing vpon the corrupt manners of all the citie as though for the fault of many which yet Gods name be praised are not the most the whole citie were not inferior to Sodome and Gomorrhe in wickednesse In which place as being very populous there are many offenders so are they punished if their offences may be knowne But who so knewe London in the time of Poperie and nowe also considereth the manners of the multitude must be a very vnequall iudge if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number though he can not see it all As for the citie of Rome which Bristowe compareth with Solomon whose Priestes were more excellēt than the report that went of him as by the storie and relation of them which knewe it before this time so by report of some which euen in this time haue visited the same we haue sufficient vnderstanding that without great reformation it still continueth the mother of all abhominations of the earth and reaching forth the cup of poisoned wine vnto such as seeke her whorish familiaritie maketh them therewith so drunke that there is no cause why Bristowe should maruell why nothing confirmeth more our countrimen in Poperie nor alienateth them from the Protestants than to goe and see Rome The eleuenth Chapter What grosse contradictions Fulke is driuen to vtter against him self while he struggleth against Gods Church and the doctrine thereof As in his whole replie he hath drawen almost all the arguments and authorities which I vsed in those two treatises vnto other endes and purposes than for which I brought them so to make a shewe of Contradiction he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places compareth them together to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth to thinke that I affirme and denie meere repugnancies without any possibilitie to reconcile them But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place in which they are written I hope there are not many of so meane iudgement but they will acknowledge they are rather the cauils of Bristowe than the contradictions of Fulke The first Contradiction he noteth that I say Art 96. You are neuer able to aunswere the arguments that Peter was neuer at Rome And thē where is the Apostolike see c. And thē on the conirarie side the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles it was an Apostolike Church For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I aunswere In the first part he falsifieth my wordes which are these You are neuer able to answere the arguments that are brought to proue that Peter was neuer Bishop at Rome and then where is all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession c. The Church of Rome might bee an Apostolike see though Peter was neuer there but all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession are vaine if Peter was neuer Bishop of Rome The second Those auncient Fathers did appeale to the iudgement of the Church of Rome against all heresies and among the Catholike Churches especially named the Church of Rome because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the bragge of the Romane faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine but patched by him yet if I graunt the sense and wordes to be as he hath forged them they are not contradictorie to the latter proposition For heretikes may bragge of that which Catholikes vse to doe and yet not be Catholikes The thirde It had by succession speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉 retained euen vntill their dayes that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 374. Contra She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishoppes except so many schismes
Caluine c. Because I knowe not how Illyricus and such contentious persons as he expoundeth the annointing in Saint Iames but referre them to aunswere for them selues therefore I speake contrary to my selfe where I say they differ not in faith from the Lutherans 41 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian mans conscience Ar. 86. Contra The Church is the â—ay of trueth If that argument of the Church without triall which is the Church might take place it would serue you both for a sword and a bucklar The church saith it and we are the church Therefore it is true Pur. 367. It seemeth Bristowe is beside himselfe in coyning of contradictions These words The Church is the stay of truth for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place but his owne addition although in other sense I confesse the Church is the stay and piller of truth not that all is true which is alwaies in the Church but that truth can not be preserued on earth by the Church 42 Among the arguments that Augustine vseth against the Pelagians one though the feeblest of an hundred is that their heresie was contrarie to the publique praiers of the church Contra All other persuasions set aside hee prouoketh onely to the Scripture to trie the faith and doctrine of the church namely in beating downe the schisme of the Donaistes and the heresie of the Pelagians Where also he contradicteth him selfe againe in shewing the reason whie he argued against the Donatistes of only Scripture but against the Pelagians of the churches praiers also The Pelagians graunted them to be of the church that so praied And therefore when Augustine had to doe with the Donatistes that challenged the church vnto them selues he setteth all other trials aside and prouoketh onely to the Scriptures Let the readers iudge for I can not imagine where there be should be so much as the shadowe of a contradiction gathered out of these wordes except he meane that he which prouoketh onely to the scriptures may not vse an hundreth argumentes out of them yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures and yet stand onely vpon the auctority of the scriptures 43 We stand for autoritie only to the iudgemeÌ„t of the holy scriptures Pu. 432. Contra The ground that we haue to persuade vs of the authoritie of gods booke is because we haue most stedfast assuraÌ„ce of Gods spirit for the autoritie of that booke with the testimonie of the true church in alages The church of Christ hath a iudgement to discerne the word of God from the writings of men The primitiue churches testimonie of the word of God we allow and beleeue You should bring a great preiudice against vs and passing wel prouide for the credit of your cause the discredit of ours if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitiue pure church for the space of a hundreth yeares after Christe or something out of any Authenticall writer which liued within one hundred yeares after the Apostles age Ar. 9. 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39. 42. The first proposition as in the place quoted is manifest is spoken of questions of doctrine and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God The last sentence You should bring c. being patched out of two places of my booke Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition for although we stand for auctority onely to iudgement of the holy scriptures yet we are content to giue you this aduantage against vs if you can bring any thing out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead 44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without colour or couerture the onely right order of ministration Contra in the next line I knowe the Papistes will flee to those wordes of the Apostle The rest I will set in order when I come That is manifest to be spoken of matters of externall comelinesse and therefore say we of the order of ministration Pur. 362. In rehearsing my wordes he leaueth out fiue lines of my saying betwene the words Couerture and The onely right c. which declare that I speake of the essâ—ntiall order of ministration against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the hoast for the quicke and the dead both generally and particularly and a solemne prayer for all departed in Christ to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament 45 The olde Doctors neuer heard Purgatorie named nor praier for the deade Pur. 438. Contra About S. Augustines time the name of Purgatorie was first inuented And long afore that also Montanus had in all points the opinioÌ„ of the Papists c. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet againe Before Chrysostomes time it was but a blinde error without a head Pur. 356. My wordes are of the heresie of Purgatory and my meaning of those olde Doctors in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a punie being younger almost by 300. yeares in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inueâ—ted yet the heresie was elder in Montanus How prayer for the deade came into the Church it was vncertaine in Chrysostomes time and therefore I say it was a blinde error without a heade 46 In Saint Augustines time Sathan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatorie Pur. 54. Contra That error of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded vp in his time Pur. 161. And specially here cap. 3. pag. 14 saying And this I thinke is the right pedigree of praiers for the dead and Purgatorie where he putteth the very last generation of it to haue bene in S. Augustines time and the foundationlong afore Christes time It were a strange contradiction that could bee picked out of these two allegories laying the foundation and rifely budding seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building and budding is the first towardnesse of fruite As for the pedigree is not to the last generation as Bristow saith layed in Saint Augustines time but from the first auctor howe it was continued vnto Saint Augustines time since which there haue beene many dissents before popish Purgatory were throughly shaped and brought forth 47 M. Allen affirmeth that after mens departure the representation of almes by such as receiued it shall moue God exceedingly to mercy O vaine imagination for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor Pur. 242. 243. Contra Chrysostome alloweth rather almes that men giue before their death or bequeath in their Testament because it is a worke of their owne than that almes which other men giue for them howbeit also such almes are auaileable for the dead he saith Pur. 236. 237. That which Chrysostome speaketh of litle helpe wil not serue Allen to proue that almes shall moue GOD exceedingly to mercy 48 The auncient Doctors did holde the foundation Contra cap. 4 pag. 28. He
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 all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
but this is sufficient that neither facere in Cyprian signifieth to sacrifice neither the bodie of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him then as it suffered in his sacrifice The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc Christ saith doe or make this thing or as Haymo saith Make this bodie for he saith not sic facite doe so but hoc facite doe or make this thing I haue answered sufficiently this making in the first booke where Sander findeth fault with our translation wherevnto I adde that which Cyprian writeth in the Epistle last mentioned Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est vtique id not obaudire facere oportet quod Christus fecit quod faciendum esse mandauit cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat si feceritis quod mando vobis iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to bee followed verily that wee ought to obey and to doe which Christ did and commaunded to bee doone seeing hee himselfe saieth in his Gospel if you shall doe that which I commaunde you nowe doe I not call you seruants but friendes In this saying Cyprian referreth the verbe facere to all thinges that Christ did and not to making his bodie But if wee shoulde graunt facere to signifie onely to make yet coulde Sander get no more of vs by making but a sacrament of his bodie yet for his exposition hee saieth hee hath Iustinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris Anno Dom. 1551. where hee writeth thus The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundemeÌ„t who when he had taken bread and giuen thanks said Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say my bodie First Sander hath put in more wordes then Iustinus for hee hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which Sander giueth Doe and make hee might as well haue added and sacrifice Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth vppon the errour of the Printer omitting one small letter o for in the next lyne continuing the hystorie of the institution he rehearseth the verie words of Christ. This is my bloude wherefore there is no doubt but lustinus telling what Christ saide doth not onely rehearse these wordes Doe this in remembrance of me but also these This is my bodie and so haue all the translatoâ—s taken it as Sander doth confesse Neither doth the processe of Iustinus prooue that he did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he saide before they tooke the meate that was consecrated by the worde of prayer to bee the flesh and bloude of Christ for that the Apostles do witnesse that Christ hath giuen them such a precept Hoc facite doe or make this thing that is to say my bodie for hee prooueth it by the whole hystorie of the institution remayning in the commentaries of the Apostles in which it is written that Christ saide Doe this in remeÌ„brance of me This is my bodie likewise after he had taken the cup and giuen thanks that he said This is my blood This processe therefore declareth what Christe said as wel in the one part as in the other and therefore excludeth the vaine cauillation of Sander grounded vpon a letter missing in one print which in other copies is not omitted as all the translations declare The 21. circumstance of the wordes in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christes death but that is best remembred by the presence of him selfe ergo he is really present for Christe would make the best remembrance that could be I answere Christe saith in the remembrance of me and not onelie of his dying but of me dying and redeeming It is against the nature of recordation or hauing in minde to haue the thing remembred actually present therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be reteining the nature of recordation and considering other circumstances to be considered as he did in al tokens that euer he made which were the best that could be deuised for God in al things doth the best wherfore this reasoÌ„ of Sand would proue the reall presence of Christ in all sacraments that were before his incarnatioÌ„ as wel as in this And whereas Chrysostome saieth Christ himselfe is daily set before vs that we shoulde not forget him he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians where he saith he was crucified among them and to the Corinthians saying his glorie shewed vnto vs with vncouered face which is by doctrine more cleare then the figures of the Lawe Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament onely Last of all whereas a potte of Manna was commaunded to be reserued for a memoriall vnto the children of Israel with what breade the Lord had fedde their fathers in the wildernesse to prooue that a thing may be the remeÌ„brance of it selfe I answere that it is nothing like For there a part of that visible foode was reserued for a sensible token of remembrance not of it selfe but of that which was eaten being of the same kinde But in this sacrament there is no such matter except wee shoulde beleeue the tales of a bloudie finger seene in the patten c. as a part of the whole bodie c. and the Papistes confesse that Christ is not sensiblie present as that Manna was The 22. circumstance of these words drinke yee all of this They all dranke of one cuppe Iudas and al saith hee for if two or three had drunke vp all either Christ must haue consecrated the cuppe againe or the rest must haue receiued a drinke not consecrated as they do in Englande when one cuppe is drunke vp an other is filled out of a prophane potte that standeth by therefore this circumstance doth shewe that more then wine is drunke This conclusion shal be graunted of them that drinke worthily without this circumstance and of them that drinke vnworthily also for they drinke iudgement to themselues But concerning consecration Sander imagineth it to be a magicall murmuring of wordes ouer that wine which is present in one cuppe Whereas the consecration of Christ and the ministers of England is a dedicating to the holy vse of the supper of so much bread and wine as shal be occupied in the celebration and neither more nor lesse But because he saith it is not the will of Christ that one Priest should consecrate in one maâ—â—eany more then once each kinde of the sacrament because Christ dyed but once and then both kinds together because his bloud and soule must be signified apart from his flesh and bodie I aske him what large cuppe they had or howe often in a day they said masse in the time of Leo bishop of Rome when a
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
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
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned
saued the goe in peace But also in many places of the Gospell we reade that our Sauiour vsed this speache that he saith the faith of the beleeuer is the cause of his saluation By all which it is cleare that the Apostle iudgeth rightly that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe See you not that iustification is not only to sett a man in free will discharged of his sinnes committed before baptisme but continueth with him vnto saluation Also where I saide that Origen answereth this obiection which the Papists make against vs for teaching iustification by faith only though Bristowe say it is false it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis c. but peraduenture some body hearing this may become idle and negligent in doing good workes if only faith suffice to iustification Is not this one of the Papists obiections Againe that this doctrine of iustification perteineth only to them that are newly conuerted to Christianity against which Origen sheweth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himselfe that he was righteous and boasting thereof Luk 18. that it perteyneth to all men that boasting may be excluded and that none boast in any thing but in the crosse of Christ Vides Apostol 〈…〉 non gloriantem c. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousnes nor of his chastity nor of his wisdome nor of his other vertues and acts but most manifestly pronouncing and saying let him that gloryeth glory in the Lorde c. and so at length sheweth that all this doth verifie the saying of the Apostle we iudge that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law which before he had interpreted by faith only whether they haue no works going before as the theefe the sinfull woman or whether they haue workes of the lawe without the faith of Christe as the Pharisee or whether they haue neuer so many workes and vertues with the faith of Christe as the Apostle Paule there is but one way of iustification for all men which is by remission of sinnes through faith onely Where Cyprian saith that faith onely profiteth Ad Quirin Cap. 42. Bristowe saith he meaneth that faith profiteth and without faith nothing profiteth I confesse in deede he meaneth all that Bristowe saith and more too namely that faith profiteth therefore workes do not profite vnto iustification as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth to proue his saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for iustice Gen. 15. By which Saint Paule proueth that Abraham was iustified by faith without workes and yet Abraham was not voyde of good workes Out of the Booke De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying That he beleeueth not in God at all which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only To this Bristowe answereth without shame that the Booke De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition coyned by Erasmus as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an vtter enemy to all forgery and supposition would himselfe counterfet a booke vnder the name of Cyprian But Bristowe doubting least he may be conuicted by auncient copies of this booke remaining in Libraries as no doubt but that he may for a second aunswer saith That this sentence is of it selfe Catholike inough For to trust Gods giftes as in the Catholike faith and good workes that he worketh in vs also to trust in Saints to trust in these I say as they be his is to trust in him onely I say sayeth Bristowe what neede we further witnesse or reason But Christe telling a parable against them that trusted in themselues that they were righteous telleth of a Pharisee that trusted in his woorkes as they were the giftes of GOD to whome hee gaue thankes for them Luke 18. This auctority of Bristowe is inough to discharge Pelagius Celestinus and all the rable of freewill men who trusted in nothing but that was the gift of God and so acknowledged by them in so much as they confessed that a man was iustified by the grace of God when he was iustified by his owne workes because God gaue free will and power to worke well also a law by keeping whereof men might be righteous Finally this rule of Bristowe will iustifie a man which putting his trust in Angels worshippeth them as Gods Angells yea which putting his trust in any of Gods creatures trusteth in him alone So that nothing is so singular but he can make it generall nor any thing so generall but he can restrayne it at his pleasure Now that Ambrose also extendeth the grace of iustification by faith only vnto eternal saluation it is manifest as generally throughout his commentarie vppon the Epistle to the Romanes so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. vpon these wordes of the Apostle I thank my God alwaies for you for the grace of God which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesu. Datam dicit c. He saith this grace which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesus which grace is so giuen in Christ Iesus because this is decreed of God that he which beleueth in Christ should be saued without workes obtaining freely remission of sinnes by faith only Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicatione c. that from the preaching of Iohn the lawe doth cease that only faith may suffice vnto saluation which is an abridgment of the law Likewise Exhortatione ad virgines Videtis mysteria c. you see the mysteries you see the grace of Christ the grace of the holy Ghost which is deliuered as it were by a certaine lot because not of workes but of faith euery one is iustified of the Lorde For as the falling out of the lott is not in our power but is such as chaunce hath brought so the grace of our Lorde is not as it were of the merite of hire but is deliuered as of his will This writeth Ambrose of al that are partakers of the grace of God and not of them that are newly baptised or conuerted only Againe in the same Booke he saith speaking of all men that attaine to saluation Hîc quidem luctamur sed alibi coronamur c. here truly we do wrestle but in an other place we are crowned I haue spoken not of my selfe only but of all men generally For whence should I haue so much merite to whom pardon is in steed of a crown What can be said more plainly to exclude the merite of good workes from iustification whereas the reward of good workes that is freely giuen to the iustified man by faith only both Ambrose and we doe neuerthelesse acknowledge 3. About Purgatorye Touching Scriptures expounded against it He sayeth I am taken in a vaine bragge because I beeing vrged by Allen to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead I bring only Hierom referring the reader to other places of Cyprian and Origen