vtterly deny the office of Christ the foundation of our saluation therefore wee iustly deny you to be of the true church of Christ. Neither is your excuse to be admitted that you erre by authoritie of them who if the trueth had bene as plainly reuealed vnto them out of the scriptures as it is to you would neuer haue so obstinatly defended their errors but as they alwayes professed yelded to the trueth against custome prescription of time authoritie of councels or any practise whatsoeuer CAP. IIII. That he chargeth the sayde primitiue true church with sundry errors wherewith he neither doeth nor will nor can charge vs. I affirme that diuerse godly fathers of the primitiue church held sundry errors which the Papists holde not at this daye Also that the auncient church erred in som points and practise wherewith I will not charge the popish church except they charge them selues But that I should confesse as Bristowe sayeth That there may be a company which erreth not onely some principall members but also the whole body of it and which erreth obstinatly and moreouer which erreth the grossest errors that can be them 〈◊〉 no small number and yet the same company may be the truâ— church This is vtterly false I neuer made such confession neither can Bristow bring any wordes of mine that sound to the same effecte and therefore I here charge him before God and the worlde for a shamelesse lyer and an vngodly slaunderer As for the errors wherewith I charge either the auncient writers or the auncient church of Rome do followe afterward discussed in the sixth Chapter CAP. V. What reason he rendreth why they in those auncient timeâ— had the true church notwithstanding these their errors First repeating my confessions That the true church may erre that it hath erred in some articles wherein we erre in many other wherein we do not erre wherof it followeth plainly qd Bristowe that neither our erring nor these our errors no nor any other our errors are alone sufficient for him to depriue vs of the true church Marke this consequens of Bristowe some errors which the Papistes hold common with the olde church cannot depriue them of the true church ergo none other errors that they hold contrary to the auncient church are alone sufficient to depriue them This is popish logike And yet I will in this argument charge his conscience rather then his science for common sense abhorreth such reasoning from the particular to the vniuersall But let vs see if such reason as alloweth the fathers to haue had the true church notwithstanding their errors may serue the Papistes to proue them the true church their errors notwithstanding The reason I alledge that the fathers had the true church is because they held the onely foundation Iesus Christ and the article of iustification by the onely mercie of God Now sayth Bristowe who knoweth not that we beleeue in the onely sonne of God and in the onely mercy of God and that therefore wee looke not to be saued by our owne works that is which we did without him in Paganisme Iudaisme or Caluinisme in heresie or deadly sinne c. but onely by his workes that is by his sacraments and the good deedes that of his great mercy he hath created in vs in Christ Iesus c. therefore the same reason serueth vs notwithstanding our errors I answere your minor is false you beleue not in the onely begotten sonne of God because you beleue not in God Cyprian de duplici Martyrio sayeth Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the trust of all his felicitie You place not your trust in God alone for you trust in your merites yea in the merites of others both liuing and dead and in an hundreth things beside God alone Secondly where you say you beleeue in the onely mercy of God it is false for you beleeue no iustification by the only mercy and grace of God which excludeth all workes and merites as the Apostle sayeth Rom. 11. Thirdly you says you beleue to be saued by his sacraments which in deede after a sort are sayde to saue vs namely not as principal â—fficient causes but as instruments and meanes that god â—seth to confirme his promises which proceede of his onely grace and mercy Fourthly you saye you beleeue to be saued by those good deeds that God of his mercy hath created in vs which plainly declareth that you looke not to be saued by the onely grace mercy of God purchased by the redemption of Christ but by such good workes as proceede from your selues although you ascribe vnto the grace of God that you be able to do them as both the Pharisee did which iustified him selfe by his owne workes and yet acknowledged God to be the author of them in him Luk. 18. And the Pelagians also affirmed generally that by Gods grace we are saued because God of his grace hath giuen such a lawe by keeping whereof wee might attaine to saluation But you cite S. Paul Tit. 3. to shewe that his mercie sacrament may stande together which no man denyeth yet can you not shewe that his mercie is so tyed to his sacrament that he saueth not without it For Abraham was iustified by faith before he was circumcised and receiued circumcision as a seale of the faith he had being vncircumcised Rom. 4. And where the Apostle speaketh of workes generally excluding them from being cause of our saluation you restreine theÌ„ only to works done before baptisme for this cursed glose you make vpon the text Not for any workes of * righteousness which we did before baptisme say you but for his mercie hee hath saued vs by baptisme But that S. Paul excludeth al maner of works done by vs from iustification the sentence following declareth That being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life For grace and workes can neuer stande as a ioynt efficient cause Rom. 11. but the one of necessitie excludeth the other As for the receiuing of the Sacramentes is no worke of ours as you truely say but an accepting of the grace which God giueth The place Ephes. 2. which you â—ite to proue that we are saued by good workes done after baptisme is cleane against you if you had rehetsed the whole text You are saued saith S. Paul by grace through faith and this not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared that we should walke in them The argument of S. Paul is taken out of the effect Good workes are the effect and aide of our iustification ergo not the efficient cause thereof And marke againe that hee saith we are saued by grace and not of
called them to washing called them to baptisme so manye hundreth yeares before baptisme was instituted Is it not therefore euident that hee calleth them to repentaunce Or else hauing first so grieuously accused them of their present sinnes doeth he shewe no comfort but in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme which no man liuing could then possibly obteine in such manner as you meane no not the Prophet him selfe I might well say to you as you say to mee in another place In good sooth Dauus these things are not aptly diuided according to their times And that Christ Iohn 13. speaketh not of the ceremonie of baptisme it iâ— manifest by diuerse reasons but of his grace by which he washeth vs from all our sinnes And therefore be sayth to Peter except he were washed of him he coulde haue no part with him But neither Peter nor any other was or is baptised of him with water Iohn 4. therfore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptisme And where you adde that he which is so washed must neuerthelesse wash his feete that is say you his veniall sinnes which he committeth afterwarde although he continue withall in the cleannesse of baptisme before he be all cleane and aske mee what if he dye before he wash his feete Admitting that the feete should signifie none but veniall sinnes I aske you againe who shall wash his feete but he which washed Peters feet for the true text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath no neede but that his feete be washed Peter could not wash his owne feete in this figuratiue signification but except Christ did wash him he could haue no part with him But if we should take the feete onely for veniall sinnes and the generall washing for baptisme this inconuenience would follow of Christes wordes that he which is baptised and purged from veniall sinnes neede no purgation to clense him from mortall sinnes but is perfectly cleare The wordes of our sauiour are generall cannot admitt your exception of continuing in the cleannesse of baptisme therefore the feete signifie all sinnes to be pardoned after the first grace purging vs which is in deede represented and ratified in baptisme but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament and often times deuided For Iudas of whome you speake if he had dyed immediatly after he was baptised should not haue gone to heauen as one throughly washed or clensed by â—aptisme Where the Papists vrge the saying of Dauid Psal. â—1 Amplius laua me c. Wash me more from mine inâ—quitie Bristow saith I haue nothing to answeare but â—hat it was at Gods hand and by the meanes of Christes â—lood that he prayed to be clensed Purg. 97. 78. Whether I haue nothing else to say let the readers of â—hose places iudge But that which I here saye taketh aâ—ay Purgatorie and all satisfaction of mans merite alâ—hough Dauid as all the faithfull do pray that they may â—aily more and more feele the mercy of God and grace â—f Christes redemption to the full satisfying of their â—onscience and perfect assurance of faith and hope of eâ—ernall life which though it receiue daily increases yet â—he vertue of Christes death in which God is reconciled â—nto vs is alwayes one and the same Where I charge Allen that the sufficiencie of Christs â—assion is counted a light argument vnto him Bristow â—aith it is too light in deede to beare downe any doctrin â—f Christ. But when or out of what scripture shal wee â—eare the doctrine of Christ for mens merites satisfaâ—tions propitiatorie or purgatorie it selfe Where I denye that our workes are any parte of saâ—isfaction for our sinnes of which the price is throughâ—y payed in the passion of Christ Bristow obiecteth the â—aying of the Apostle Phil. 2. Worke your owne saluation and yet it is God that worketh in you As though there were no working of our saluation but by satisfaction for our sinnes Wee worke our saluation when we walke in the way that God hath called vs to passe through vnto the free gift of eternall life namely in faith obedience thankfulnes c. which are so farre from merite that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to perfourme any good thing according to his good pleasure Phil. 2. And therefore wee neede not the schoole distinction of causes for the satisfaction of our sinnes by our workes which is onely the effect of Christes death and passion needing no helpe of our workes which worde Bristowe sayth mine ignorance so much abhorreth and yet the scripture often sayth that God helpeth both Christ Ps. 17. vs. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christs helpeth vs Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture that our workes helpe the passion of Christ I abhorre not the worde of helping when it is vsed in that sense that God and Christ should helpe vs or God helpe Christ in respect of his humanitie but that man by merite should helpe God Christ in the worke of our redemption satisfaction for our sinnes or purging of them I abhoâ—â—e with all my heart yea I spit at it and tread it vnder my feete But if the mercie of God saith Bristowe although iâ— be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christs passion nor the working of it or merites of that man how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christs passioÌ„ enforte you to exclude either his baptisme his good workes in his members or also the working of his baptisme and the working or efficacie of those good works especially seeing the scripture is plaine for all Bristow vnderstandeth not how the mercie of God is omnisufficient which is not as eâ—ery one will imagine but as it may stande with his iustice which is not otherwise satisfied but in the passion of Christ which being thereby fully satisfied we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth but that which not onely the scripture denyeth but nature it selfe abhorreth that contradictories should be both true Namely the iustice of God is fully satisfied by the onely suffering of Christ And the iustice of god is not satisfied by the onely sufferings of Christ but by other meanes also as by our own workes or suffrings or other mens for vs. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristowe citeth proue this later part of the contradiction to be true First where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration The text is when the louing kindnesse gentlenes of God our sauiour appeared not of the works of righteousnes which we wrought but according to his owne mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and the receiuing of the holy ghost which he hath powred foorth plentifully vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour that being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternal life Here it is manifest we are so â—aued by baptisme that we are iustified by his grace ther â—ore not by the merite of baptisme or satisfactioÌ„
workes Marke also the reason why we are not saued by any workes done by man namely least any shoulde boast For boasting of man is not excluded so long as any workes that he doth may be the cause of his saluation For if Abraham be iustified by workes hee hath whereof to boast but not with God Rom. 4. where is then boasting It is excluded By what lawe of works No but by the lawe of faith Wherefore not onely the workes done before baptisme but all other are excluded from iustification that no man should boast as the Pharisee but that all glory of our saluation might be ascribed wholy to God by Iesus Christ. You therefore building saluation vpon good workes done after baptisme doe manifestly builde vpon another foundation then the onely true foundation Iesus Christ and therefore your errors notwithstanding you cannot as the olde fathers erring in small matters be yet the church of God What Flaccius Illyricus an intemperate man iudged of S. Hierom I haue not to aunswere for him CAP. VI. An aunswere first to all the foresaide errors wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first 600. yeares and afterwarde likeâ—ise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these lateâ— yeares Hetherto we had nothing in a manner but a rehersall of such matters as hee affirmeth to be confessed by me nowe he promiseth to proue that notwithstanding any thing I obiecte the Church hath neuer erred and moreouer that it can neuer erre How well he performeth his promise we shall see by considering his aunsweres and arguments Fulkes zeale in aunswering for Caluin and others being in deede of his Church First he chargeth me to holde that our Church at this present doth not erre and that I neuer say so much as plainely that it may erre In deede I am throughly perswaded that our Church in matters necessary to saluation doth not erre But when I say plainely that not onely euery particular Church but euen the whole Catholike Church on earth of euery age may erre in matters not necessarie to saluation what an impudent creature is this to affirme that I neuer say plainely that our Church may erre He that saith plainly euery man â—â— a lyer doth he not say plainely that both Fulke and Bristowe are lyers But my zeale for Caluin is wonderfull great in his opinion for I say he erreth not but the fathers and the whole Church haue erred A man were as good to reason with a poste as with such a sensles Papist I say Caluin erreth not in such pointes as hee is slaundered of by Allen therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and crie out as loude as I can euery man erreth and yet in Bristowes eares I say Caluin erreth not The like zeale I shewe for Maister Iewel whose learned labours I commende to the iudgement of the world And yet he hath quit himselfe so well saith Bristowe that the very reading of his aunswere hath turned many earnest Protestants into earnest Catholikes as both by the numbers and by the noblenesse of the persons is notoriously knowne I thinke the number and the nobilitie of the conuerts is all alike There runneth such a tale of Copley the great barron of Haie created by the Spanish I wot not howe Lorde of the Maze an auncient rotten house in Southwarke that he shoulde be so conuerted if some popish treason discouered caused him not to faine such a souden and straunge conuersion But yet Bristowe cannot abide that I should exhort English papists to reade that booke and pray to God for direction in the trueth No sir saith he that is not the way to trueth no more then to swallowe poyson and pray is the way to get or keepe health of bodie Alas poore Bristowe hast thou so soone forgot that which thou saidst immediatly before that Iewels booke is such a soueraigne antidote that hath expelled the poyson of Protestants from so many and so noble personages and made them so earnest Catholikes that thou nowe wouldest haue them fly from it as from a poyson We see thy wittie pollicie it is not the way to trueth thou sayest to reade our aunsweres but it is the way to continue meÌ„ in error to suffer them to see nothing but that you say your selues A sure way to winne credit but yet with fooles onely For hee that dare not let his aduersaries aunswere bee seene sheweth plainely that hee dare not abide the tryall but requireth all men to beleeue him vppon his bare worde Where you say I should rather exhort men to reade the auncient writers I aunswere that is needelesse for such whom I exhort to reade maister Iewels replie namely such as cannot wade well out of these controuersies without such conference as they may see betweene maister Harding and maister Iewell The first part concerning the errors that he layd ap 3. par 2. both to the fathers and to vs and first of the crosse and images First where I charge them that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentinians that the reader may wonder at my audacitie he saith Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure nor signe nor vse of the crosse but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones and in them two or 3. Christes and one of the Christs they called Crux c. what say you Bristowe speake they not a worde either of the figure signe or vse of the crosse I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus where he telleth that they call the Zodiak whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen an image of the crosse And when they both tell you that the crosse among the Valentinians had a double vse of confirmation and separation speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse No say you they inuented 30 gods called Aeones and among them diuerse Christs wherof the crosse was one It is a shame to lye on the diuell The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes but emissions of the first great inuisible infinite Acone Neither was the crosse any of those 30. Aeones ages or worldes For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus before he cometh to the crosse videlicet 8. of the first emission tenne of the seconde and twelue of the thirde Neither did they call the crosse Christ but the vertue of Christ confirmatiue separatiue such as healed the woman of the bloudie issue Vnto which they gaue diuerse names calling it in a manner as you papists doe the redeemer the sauior the sanctifier the apoynter of the bounds the bringer vnto further matters the most perfect ende or termination c. But all this while you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse but of a fained mysterie or imagination Then you must vnderstand that of these imagined mysteries they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in
that is the circum 〈…〉 ised the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith as Aâ—raham in both the states was iustified by faith without the workes of the law although as Iames sayth he was â—ustified before men by his oblation which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith and obedience Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done but according to his owne great mercie 〈…〉 e saved vs by baptisme Bristowe asketh if I marke the temps Yea very well he speaketh of workes before faith And doth it therefore followe that works done after faith doe iustifie Saint Paule extendeth the saluation which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth and renewing of the holy Ghoste which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour vnto eternall life therefore it followeth that beeing iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke which is the iustification of Saintes made white in the bloud of the lambe but with the filthy ragges of mannes righteousnesse Bristowe asketh where I learned to call the good workes done in the Church the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse Verily euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church All we are as an vncleane person and all our righteousnesse as filthy ragges For although God accept our workes that are done in faith and pardon their imperfection yet when they are obtruded vnto him to iustifie vs he abhorreth them as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes Apoc. 19. are good workes Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn 3. He that worketh iustice is iust where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man not of the cause No flesh is iust by workes of the law but by faith by which God maketh iust euen the vngodly man But how much better conference is it to know what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth which is the iustification of Saintes to compare it with other places of the same prophecie as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed howe the stoles of the faithful are made white with the bloud of the lambe and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ Ephe. 5. Touching freewill I saide we beleeue that man after his fall hath not free will no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the worde we are not sufficient but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apte to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptnes is of God To this Bristowe replyeth that naturall free will is not taken from vs nor naturall aptnes of will I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher and not like a flat Pelagian But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good which is none but bondage vnto euill except he be regenerate and then is his will framed of God in parte to good but not perfectly in this life as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies as for freedome opposite to coaction if Bristowe meane that by reteyning of free will I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint but not from seruilitie vnto sinne Whereof Saint complaineth Rom 7. Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e mainteined if Gods spirite haue any place that di 〈…〉 ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his owne will 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes which is 〈…〉 ery true but without working of Gods spirite our will 〈…〉 at h no aptnesse vnto any good thing Againe he saith 〈…〉 hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes that are freely gi 〈…〉 en and not of them that make a man acceptable as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts which are not freely giuen And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all working of Gods spirite euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ and not of speciall graces onely So that Bristowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose or matter 〈…〉 n question For I holde that we haue no aptenesse vnto 〈…〉 ny good of our owne freewill but onely of the grace of God Bristow saith I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent if we haue willes of our owne which I neuer 〈…〉 enied but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good before they be framed therto by Gods spirit is the thing 〈◊〉 denye About good workes in speciall namely prayer to Saintes 〈…〉 astinge merites Concerning inuocation of Saints I saide Purg. 451. wee call not vpon Saints because we beleeue not in theÌ„ for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee beleue not Rom. 10. To this reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place he saith first that Saint Paule did often inuocate call vppon the faithfull beseching them to pray for him which is a toye to mocke with an Ape for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte and could helpe his greefe but onely of charitie desireth their prayers Secondly he asketh where is any Scripture that we must beleeue in God onely Forsooth amongst many this shal suffice which is written in Ieremie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said the people beleeued God and Moses his seruant as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets and beleeuing in them which is to put our trust in them The like I saie to the seconde place quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people if they giue credite to Gods Prophets Credite Prophetis eius But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue belyke because of the preposition beth which is a miserable shift Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen to differ from the Latine and English phrase and especially from the sense of beleuing that is trusting in God which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature which is not God He quoteth also Philemon whose loue faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu and towards all his Saints where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ and loue to the Saints But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue he saith in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood Iohn 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ because he is
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
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
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but
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 doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour whose fruite is forbidding of marrying eating of meates 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable for what cause of religion so euer it be And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists than against those open blasphemers But howe proueth Bristowe that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites Forsooth because Augustine sayeth Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint vt propria nulla possideant ab esâ—a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius Philaster verò hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam Some say that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie but onely such as conteine from marriage and haue so renounced the world that they possesse no proper goods yet Epiphanius sayeth not that they abstain from eating of flesh but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence The similitude which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites is onely in the abstinence from marriage and meates and possessions not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained For seeing Aerius was an Arrian he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance And although he were the scholer of Eustachius yet it followeth not that he held all pointes as his maister did Augustine chargeth him to haue added these matters of his owne Beside that diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists concerning the marriage of priestes and the abstinence from meates howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry and hope to them that eate fleshe yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write that they which be marryed be in the flesh and cannot please God Ep. ad Him Tarrat And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited all the world doth know 4 Of Ceremonies and Liturgies The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued Bristowe quarreling that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth Tamen ecclesia c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life And I reply notwithstanding that they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle Quamuis enim c. For although neither this can be founde howe they are against the faith yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens which the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable which although they haue not knowen the time of libertie yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens not to humaine presumptions But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine that if the whole church vse any thing it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question whether that should be so vsed I answere wee speake of approuing of vsages not of any thing that is generally vsed The church is S. Augustines time approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent without open abrogation which yet were diuerse in diuerse places Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason that many of them are abrogated he answereth that is no good argument for there might be good cause to abrogate them although they came of the tradition of the Apostles as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded To the former decree I reply that it was temporall and not meant by the makers to be eternall but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both although for necessitie of health a nightcap kercheffe or such like couering according to the custome of the country be not absolutely prohibited As for the forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees which might be abrogated nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe so 〈…〉 et it passe although I knowe not what he meaneth to say that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies is neuer denied of me but fondly alledged of him which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued as commaundements of the scripture referring euery blynde ceremonie whereof he knoweth none author to tradition of the Apostles Nowe concerning the Liturgies he sayth Proclus answereth why Basil Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them he sayth forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames which was too loÌ„g for the peoples cold deuotion But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome to be counterfeits for ther is small difference in the length of them and in a manner none at all As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome but that proueth not these which we haue at this day to be the same seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour Nicholas the bishop in Chrysostome which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death But that prayers for the dead were vsed in the ancient Liturgies that were before Chrysostomes tyme Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries memorie should be made