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.
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
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
of our 〈…〉 nnes in baptisme but we are saued by baptisme as we â—re inâ—eoâ—fed by a deede that is sealed that is assured of â—aluation as Abraham receiued circumcision the seale â—f the righteousnes which he had by faith before he was â—ircumcised Ro. 4. and euen so he clenseth his church by â—he lauer of water not by the merite of the worke of bapâ—isme but in that he gaue him selfe for it that he might sanctifie it Eph. 5. After the same maner doth baptisme saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of the filth of the flesh â—ut the interrogatioÌ„ of a good conscience before god thoâ—ough the resurrection of Iesus Christ which presuppoâ—eth his death for satisfaction of our sinnes as his resurâ—ection is the speciall cause of our iustification Last of â—ll saith Bristowe he hath made vs kings priestes to God Apo. 1. If spiritual priests ergo to offer vp spiritual sacrifices as of 〈…〉 ur mortification Rom. 12. our almes deedes Heb. 13. both for our â—wne sinnes for the sinnes of other Here in the last point â—he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth but we shal haue reason confirmed by scripture because the â—xternall priest is ordeined to offer externall sacrifices for sinnes â—oth for him selfe for the people Heb. 5. But this cause is many wayes auoided for we are priests to offer vp the onâ—y sacrifices of thanksgiuing not of propitiation for sinne which cannot be without shedding of bloud Heb. 9. Secondly although we be all made priests yet we are not made high priests of which the text speaketh Heb. 5. which office one only can enioy at one time which is our sauiour Christ for terme of his life which is without end Thirdly those sacrifices which the externall priest offered for sinnes could neuer take away sinnes Heb. 10. much lesse our spirituall sacrifices of thanksgiuing for Gods benefites bestowed on vs his whole church I cited further Apoc. 7. These are they that came out of that great affliction haue washed their stoles and made them white in the bloud of the lamb therfore they are in the presence of the throne of god Brist saith this word therefore is referred to their comming out of affliction and so whited their stoles And yet this gloser saith he of me taketh it away from the affliction whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction O impudent and blasphemous heretike when the holy ghost expressely sayeth they made their stoles white in the bloud of the lamb darest thou open thy mouth and saye not only that that whiting was somewhat else then the bloud of Christ but also that it was nothing but that affliction so vtterly excluding the bloud of Christ But I forgot to conferre other places of scripture as he chargeth me Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sinnes to any other thing than to the bloud of Christ Let vs heare what whoso ouercommeth shal be clothed with white garments Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs ouercame the diuell not onely by the blood of the lambe but also by their owne patient confession or affliction vnto death Apoc. 12. The text is and they ouercame him by the bloud of the lambe and by the word of their testimonie and they loued not their liues vnto death Here is no cause of victorie but the bloud of the lambe and the worde of their testimonie which was the confession of their faith the onely instrumentall cause of their iustification and victorie who is he which ouercommeth the world sayth S. Iohn but he that beleueth 1. Iohn 5. Faith therefore the onely shilde to haue victory against the worlde and the diuell hath no power in it selfe to clense our sinnes but leaneth altogether to the bloud of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latine authenticall translation and to turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne martyrdom which is in deede by the worde of their testimonie or which they did testifie whereas by his translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for suffering of death as I thinke it is in no Greeke author sure I am it is neuer so taken in the newe testament But Bristow addeth that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Iesus when the Apostles were mortifyed for Iesus and sayeth they carryed the same about continually in their bodies that also the life of Iesus might also be manifected in their bodies 2. Cor. 4. I wot well wee must be conformable to Christ in sufferings that we may be partakers of his kingdome and glorie but doeth it therefore followe that our sufferings merit this glorie by his bloud or that his bloud without all respect of our merites doeth not alone purge and clense vs from all our sinnes After he had finished the cleansing of our sinnes by his owne selfe sayeth the Apostle he is set downe at the right hande of magnificence in the highest Heb. 1. Last of all Bristowe opposeth that Saint Paul sayth This our affliction although it be but short and light worketh vs euerlasting weight of glory exceeding measure aboue measure 2. Cor. 4. I answere it worketh not by meriting not by purging our sinnes or by satisfying for our iniquities but by making vs conformable vnto our head in passing by the same way of tribulatioÌ„s vnto glorie that he did euen as the way or steppes which leadeth vnto an high place of dignitie maketh not them worthie of the dignitie that must ascende by those steppes vnto it and yet it is necessarie for them that will come to that dignitie to sit in such places to take that ordinary way Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignitie so doeth affliction worke our glory Not to abridge any part of the glorie or merite of Christes suffering by which onely wee are made worthie of glory when all our sinnes being cleansed by his bloud wee appeare righteous before God not in the merite of our owne workes nor hauing our owne righteousnes which is by the lawe but the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ that wee may knowe him of the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable vnto his death Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth that seeing the bloud of Christ purgeth vs of all our sinnes and Iesus Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes committed either after baptisme or before that all other purgings and satisfactioÌ„s are ouerthrowen and so popish purgatorie remaineth without any foundation the purging of Christs bloud making vs most pure and Christ our propitiation being throughly only sufficient to reconcile vs. Secondly directly of Purgatorie it selfe prayer for the dead whether all the elect goe streight to heauen Afore Christes comming Limbus patrum His childish rayling on mine
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
rules enacted by Parliament for condemning heresie if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect and not deride them like a scornefull traitor he might vnderstand that the three later are not contrarie to the first which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture which is declared either in the 4. first general councels or in any other generall councell agreeing with the scripture or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter Not that the Parliament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie or to make any thing heresie which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures What if I woulde not were I worse then the Thessalonians or Bereans which dayly searched the scriptures to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture saith Bristowe and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth Gal. 1. which was of preaching as if it were of onely scripture I aunswere my wordes are these if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth he is to be accursed but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God since the Apostles departure but the canonicall scriptures which doe containe al that they preached the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of saluatioÌ„ then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels 〈…〉 he see apostolike and succession of bishops with a note 〈◊〉 the ende what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence whereof if I had any couler my selfe 〈…〉 o mountybanke pedler is so facing and boasting as I â—nd my fellowes As franke as I seeme in renouncing â—hat goodly euidence I trust to be carefull enough to â—olde fast the euidence of eternall life which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God and if I and my fellowes boast in â—hem because our boasting is in God I doubt not but â—ee shal be better accepted of him then they that count â—hat boasting a stale exception and boast in vanitie 〈…〉 ust in lying and at least make flesh for their arme â—heir heart departeth from the liuing God 4 Against the fathers Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares 〈…〉 ter Christ because I knowe they cannot yet in that 〈…〉 allenge I say nothing contradictorie to my former 〈…〉 ssertion that onely the worde of God conteined in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures is the iudge of all doctrine and tryall of trueth and stay of a Christian mans conscience against any thing that is taught to be beleeued vnto saluation or concerning the worship of God either contrary to it or beside it But Fulkes two onelyes sayeth Bristowe namely onely the moste auncient Church and only Scripture are vtterly without all ground and but 〈…〉 eere voluntarie If it be without grounde to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof let euery Christian conscience consider As for the voluntarinesse â—f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie beâ—ause you will not accept them let your will stande in 〈…〉 eede of reason but if you call them voluntarie because you neede not accept them and yet approue your selues good Christians remember who it is that sayth my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come when you will not be tyed to the most auncient Churches testimony and the eldest writers of the same Nowe concerning other by quarrels and cauils whereas I sayde Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures wee receiue it with their praise and whatsoeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures we refuse with their leaue Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures But who made him so priuie of my meaning my wordes import no such thing for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian that which I spake of all the fathers in generall Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani non vt canonicas habeo sed eaâ— ex canonicâ—â— considero quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non congruit cuâ— pace eius respuo I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall but I consider them by the canonicall and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I receiue it with his praise but that which agreeth not I refuse it with his leaue I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly by that which agreeth with the Scripture to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes Where I sayde that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest worde of God and the credite of the Apostles there is no cause that we should be carryed away with them Bristowe sayeth in the margent aâ— though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles when wee saye The Apostles haue not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings you aunswere but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men is not to be receiued he noteth our absurditie because not onelye Melancton and such like as Allen hath tolde â—s were mortall men but also in the same terme of mortall men are the Apostles them selues comprehended And what of this Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton or of Peter and Paul as they were mortall men No verily Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone and the onely author of the doctrine whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste and therefore their writings wee receiue as the worde of God which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles Where I sayde We dare not depend vppon any one manâ—â—udgement for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde Bristowe answereth Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time yea and â—ith Christ him selfe and yet to winne such persons both the Apostles and Christ him selfe condescended to them accordingly And why do not you follow the example of Christ of his Apostles to winne so many thousandes as doe refuse
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 〈…〉
owne eyes but that which I commaunde you that onely shall you do without adding any thing to it or taking any thing away from it After a fonde quarrell of the quotation omitted by the printer and his coniecture thereupon Moses sayeth not saith Bristowe That onely which I doe write but that onely which I commaund And so our sauiour Christe commaundeth the Iewes accordingly The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire and therefore whatsoeuer they commaund you obserue it I aske no better wee must obserue that only which God coÌ„mandeth whether Moses or any other of the Prophets apostles or Euangelists haue written it whether the Scribes or Pharisees pastors or teachers do preach it But where shal we finde that which God hath coÌ„maunded but in the law the prophets in the writings of the apostles euangelists which are able to make vs wise to saluation which are profitable to make that man of god perfect prepared to al good works As for the pinnes saith Bristow you may see in the doctors they were not for that cause you imagine of leauing nothing to mans deuise in that worship of God For how say you then by Dauid Salomon who changed not only a pinne but all the pinnes the whole tabernacle into the temple ordeined musicall instruments and manye other thinges for the worship of God that the lawe did not mention I aunswere whatsoeuer Dauid and Salomon chaunged and ordeyned they did not by the deuise of man but by reuelation from God who had ordeined them to doe it But mine error is sayeth Bristow because I do not distinguish betwene men that haue onely their owne humaine spirites and men that haue the spirite of God as Moses the Propheâ—â— and Apostles and the catholike Church I were in deedâ— in a grosse errour if I could not distinguish the spirite of God from the spirite of man But Bristowe erreth because he confoundeth men that were specially chosen to receiue the worde of God by reuelation and the same to preach and write as the Prophets and Apostles with the Church which consisteth of men hauing the spirite of adoption but for the certeintie of trueth buylded vpon the foundation of the Prophets Apostles or else erring if they depart from that foundation The digression he maketh to the vnlearned brother because I knowe not the treatise against which he writeth I omitt But where he returneth to admonish mee his fellowe Fulke as he calleth mee to looke better to my Logike concerning mine argument ab authoritate nâ—gaâ—iuâ— I do him to witt that God I thanke I am not to learne Logike nor the force of an argument of authoritie negatiuely of him The argument that angreth him is this All true doctrine is taught in the Scriptures Purgatorie is not taught in the scriptures therefore Purgatorie is no true doctrine Here are two faultes sayeth Bristowe one because the maior is false the other supposing the maior were true yet cannot the argument be opposed to our arguments of traditions councels fathers I will first proue the maior That whereby the man of God may be made perfect furnished to all good workes is taught in the Scriptures 2. Tim. 3. All true doctrine is that whereby the man of God may be made perfect prepared to all good workes Therefore all true doctrineâ—s taught by the scriptures Againe That which is able to make a man wise to saluation teacheth all true doctrine needefull to saluation for of other truethes we speake not but the scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation ergo 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth all true doctrine And concer 〈…〉 g the seconde fault which supposeth the maior mi 〈…〉 were true yet denyeth the argument I woulde 〈…〉 sh you fellowe Bristowe to looke better to your 〈…〉 gike howe an argument that is true in matter and 〈…〉 rme may not be opposed against you But you 〈…〉 ing a wittie example if you prooue a doctrine vnto 〈…〉 câ— out of the olde testament and I oppose therunto 〈…〉 y negatiue argument and saye All true doctrine 〈…〉 aught in the newe Testament that doctrine is not 〈…〉 ght in the newe testament therefore that doctrine 〈…〉 o true doctrine You aske mee whether this be well 〈…〉 posed of mee I aunswere no neither woulde I euer 〈…〉 pose such an argument against you which though it 〈◊〉 true in forme yet it is manifestly false in matter 〈…〉 r if you suppose the maior to be true as you say that 〈…〉 olde it and must holde it especially if you say so then 〈…〉 he minor vtterly false for then no doctrine is taught 〈◊〉 the olde testament but the same is taught also in 〈◊〉 newe Testament Wherefore this example prooueth 〈…〉 t but that mine argument ab authoritate negatiuè is 〈…〉 ghtly opposed against traditions councels fathers 〈…〉 ch like as auouch any doctrine for true which is not 〈…〉 ght in the Scriptures in which all trueth is taught The second part Of Scriptures alledged concerning the question of the Church â—â—d first what he alledgeth indefinitely that the Church may 〈…〉 re The firste text cited Ar. 86. Euery man is a lyar â—herfore the whole Chuch militant consisting of men â—hich are al lyars may erre alltogether Against this Bristowe asketh Why I doe not saye 〈…〉 e Church triumphant And demaundeth whether 〈…〉 at also doe not consist of men I aunswere the scrip 〈…〉 re Psalm 116. speaketh of men liuing in this worlde 〈…〉 d such as are meere men lest he should cauill at our 〈…〉 uiour Christ which is a man and yet not contained in this generall rule As for the members of the triumphant Church whether they may properly be câ—lled men I will not dispute but wee speake as the scripture speaketh of men on earth and the Church o 〈…〉 â—arth And therefore although it be true that somâ— men by the gifte of God are veraces true yet nere which may not erre And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather Purg. 451. God onely is not true if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot erre is not auoided by saying the Apostles cannot erre For vndoubtedly the Apostles did erre That their preachings and writings were not erronious it was because they were not theirs but the enditing of the holy ghoste by them But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope it is manifest by this that he hath spoken contrary to the spirite of God in the Scriptures not onely in matters of controuersie betweene him and vs but also in heresies condemned by both partes The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I saye The true onely Church of God hath no such priuilege graunted but that she may be deceiued in some things for her knowledge is vnperfect her prophecying is vnperfect Bristowe replyeth that S. Paul in that speach includeth him selfe Our knowledge our prophecying c. is vnperfect whether we speake or write And sayth that he troweth I will
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„
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
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
intercession of the Apostles in whose honour it was offered at their reliques there is no word although by any figure you vnderstand the Emperors tombe whereof he speaketh to signifie his soule which is rather a rhetoricall exornation shewing howe his tombe was honoured as cap. 67. he sheweth that all the princes of the armie and the Senate worshipped his dead bodie euen as they did when he was aliue which vaine pompe he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God to be giuen to the Emperors But in effect you can shewe no more of Constantius fauouring of your religion but in that one error of praying for the dead to which I oppose his commandement laide vpon Metriades bishop of Rome to heare the cause of Cecilianus Eâ—seb lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Councel de lit Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeale from the bishop of Rome and other like matters shewing his souereigne authoritie ouer the bishop of Rome and other Prelates I said that although Theodoret report that Theodosius the younger praied for his parents foules yet the storie saith not that he praied to Saint Chry so stome for them Bristow opposeth the Tripartite storie and Theodoret in Latine lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter 36. where Theodoret in his owne words speaking of the tombe of Chrysostome saith of Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He setting vpon the tombe both his eyes and forehead offered a supplication for his parents desiring pardon for them that had done iniurie of ignoraunce These wordes inforce not praier to Saint Chrysostome although praier to the dead was at that time erroniously practised That Allen citeth out of Ambrose of Honorius standing by the holie altars while the solemnitie of his fathers funerall was celebrated maketh little to proue Honorius to haue bene a Papist although in that point I denie not which can not yet of those wordes be proued that he might be occupied in praier for the deade according to the errour of his time One errour can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith who is knowne to haue bene of that religion which Ambrose setteth foorth in his writings contrarie to Papistrie in the most and most necessarie pointes vnto saluation The 40. dayes minde which Allen would begge out of that place to resemble their Popish monethes minde I haue sufficiently reproued by shewing the continuance of the fourtie daies solemnitie without intermission That the last day was one of the fourtie and kept with singular solemnitie as is vsuall in such cases which Bristowe opposeth can not make a iust resemblance of the Popish mone thes mindes which are a renouation of a mourning or solemnitie intermitted Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the generall desection to haue bene of our religion Bristowe in a lurious rage noteth in the margent Sce the impudent heretike them whome he condemned before But who is this impudent heretike that condemned those Christian Emperors before or where is there any word of their condemnation Is there no difference betweene reprouing of an errour and condemuing of the person But let that passe among Bristowes impudent and malicious slaunders The Kings of the earth saith he haue not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon when they humblie adored the Church of Rome and licked the dust of her feete as they are commaunded by the Prophet Esai 49. 60. c. This shall be confessed when it is proued that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christe and not the strumpet of Babylon although the Prophet speake not of bodily bowing kissing or licking Where I name Ziska Procopius and George king of Bohemia defenders of the Protestants Bristow saith it was an 100. yeares before the name much more the religioÌ„ of the Protestants was coined as though their religioÌ„ might not be before that name was vsed to cal theÌ„ by But that Edward the third was a Wicleuist who euer heard saith Bristow And who euer heard me say or write that he was a Wicleuist I saide Ar. 34 that king Edward other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause and for that you may read at large M. Foxes storie of Wickleue CoÌ„cerning the booke of Caro lus Magnus against images I haue aunswered Sander Bristowe else where The booke of Berttam is entituled ad Carolum magnum although Trithemius say it was vnto Charles the king brother of Lotharius the antiquitie of which inscription is elder then Trithemius except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fansie durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence transubstantiation therefore Charles the King or Emperor did hold this opinion He that will read the booke shal see he doth plainly expresse his iudgement against the corporall presence and as for transubstantiation there was no question thereof in his time In the 21. Demaund of Churches where I say the Papistes had wonne no more if we could shewe neuer a Church but such as haue bene builded by Papistes and to Popish vses then the idolaters against the Apostles which could shewe no temples but builded vnto idols Bristowe saith the challenge were not one because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion we renounce Popish religion but not all their Churches The cause whâ—e the Apostle renounced their temples was for that manie of them were not for the vse of Christian religion although if credite may be giuen to our countrie histories the Pagans temples were conuerted to Christian Churches both by the Brytons Saxons But those conuerters saith Bristowe were the founders of them be it so yet were they not the builders of them Yet such as were builded by Christian princes were builded that their soules might be praied for in them as that Church of the twelue Apostles builded by Constantine the great whereof mention is before c. Of so manie Chruches as he builded onely in building that one he had that erronious conceit Where I say the olde Churches were builded onely in the honor of God and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures Saints and Angels Marie wellymet quod Bristowe They were called Basilicae Martyrum ApostoloruÌ„ the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches c. Ergo They were not builded to the honour of God onely but to the honour of creatures when the olde writers whome I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirme that a temple belongeth onely to God And Augustine expresly denieth that they were the temples but the memories of those Martyrs whose names they bare and as foraltars he vtterly denieth them vnto creatures Where I said that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome Bristowe crieth blessing on Iouinian Whie Bristowe Was there neuer any Bishop of Rome married Was there no priest married in Hierome and Augustines time although Iouinian could not persuade
with his censure was countermanded by many Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did countermaund him or gaue him contrarie commaundement to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie and loue of his neighbour Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things wherein they differed declared that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought but that the Bishop of Rome might erre The other example I brought was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome misliked by Dionysius Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 c. sharply reproued by Cyprian accusing him of presumption and contumacie Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus and almost all the Churches of Asia thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes should be baptized againe Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant nor so presumptuous that he would say he held the primacie and that other men should obey him as his inferiors Bristowe saith none of these denied the primacie of Peter I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie although Cyprian in the same place saith For neither Peter whom our lord chose first which argueth no primacie but of order vpō whom he builded his Church when Paule did afterward dissent from him about circumcision did boast him self or take vpon him any thing insolently or arrogantly that he should say he held the primacie and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie and certaintie of trueth against al men But Bristowe saith when there was no remedie but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them they did like Catholike men for all their Councels conforme their newe practise to the old custome and quoteth August de bapt cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. 25. where there is no such matter also he referreth vs to his fift Demaund where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement being admonished in a vision and that he had learned that not nowe onely but of olde time both in Aphrica and other places the trueth was receiued c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes if they dissented from the bishop of Rome there is no word The place of Hierome ad Euagrium which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church against a custome of the Church of Rome Bristowe saith doth not proue a Church a rule of trueth and Christianitie without the bishop and Church of Rome because Hierome saith as also there I cite Nec altera c. we must not thinke that there is one Church of the citie of Rome and an other of all the world c. By which wordes he sheweth that the Church of Rome if she will be a member of the Catholike Church must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome Where I say we beleeue the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ vnto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth Bristowe obiecteth suppose that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime as farre as the Church reacheth To this impossible supposition I aunswere that one King should haue no more authoritie than euerie King hath nowe But Bristowe obiecteth that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers c. Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike I would pull them downe In the motiue of Apes he discharged me from being a Puritane by his censure but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre that I should also be a traitour as he and all his fellowes are To his wise obiection I aunswere that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers so they are no Ecclesiasticall but ciuill Magistrates and the Church may be without them as it was many hundreth yeares Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians they haue chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had Dauid Solomon Iehosophat Ezechias Iosias c. But Christ professing that all power is giuen him Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie he might commit what authoritie he would and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe teach and baptize◠and to one of them singularly feede my lambes and my sheepe No maruel though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe Christ saide to one feede my lambes and sheepe therefore he saide it singularly and he hath vniuersall charge and all his successors to But for the Popes supremacie the Apostle saith expresly 1. Cor. 12. the heade vnder Christ can not say to the feete you are not necessarie to me But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse vnder Christ when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and the whole church also is like If you seeke the head of euery seuerall congregation you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof but if you seeke the head of the whole Church the scripture teacheth but one which is Christ for one head vnder another in one whole body is monstrous But you thinke perhaps Christ as he is head of his Church may say to the feete he hath no neede of them and therefore it must be vnderstoode of an head vnder Christ but then you must remember that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe yet as he vouchsafeth to take vpon him this office to be head of the Church he is not perfect without al his members which is the singular comfort of Gods children Ephe. 1. ver last But Saint Paule Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith vnder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie This cause is a shameles and senseles lie for no antiquitie for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed the see or the decrees therof Again what reason is it that Peters successors should be included more thē the successors of the other Apostles seeing this souereigntie of Peter is not grounded vpon his Apostleship but vpon his Bishoplike office as Sander maintaineth As for the principalitie of Apostleship principalitie of the Apostles chaire which he quoteth out of August de bapt Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. epi. 162. haue often bene shewed to be vnsufficient to make euery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in
authoritie or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles And consequently there is no cause to thinke that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vpon them for departing from that see In the 29. Demaund of Traditions where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians which accused the scriptures of imperfection saying that they are ambiguous and that the trueth can not be found in them by such as knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth c. Bristowe answereth that S. Irenee him selfe as al Catholikes will haue both scripture and tradition Yea sir but what tradition any trueth of doctrine conserued by tradition which is not contained in the holie scriptures nothing lesse But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures Hunc patrem c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches they that wil may learne out of the scripture it selfe and vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered is contained in their writinges and it is still an hereticall assertion to say that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing but some by word of mouth In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie where I affirme the order of the Apostles schoole is first to heare the word of God preached and then to beleeue Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend that he first beleeued and afterward sought to vnderstand Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine lib Retr 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to haue ben for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught by most certaine reason what was true whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles without requiring a reason of their doctrine howe vaine it is I leaue to children to laugh at seeing I speak not of reason but of the word of God preached which must needes goe before faith Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil cred cap. 13. where he saith It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion But howe should faith be persuaded but by the preaching of the word of God without curious inquisition according to the reason of man Where I say that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God Bristow derideth their authoritie who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word as though the Popish superiors might not or their supreme head although beside so many blasphemous errors as he holdeth wherof the controuersie is with the Papistes it haue not bene oft proued that diuers Popes haue bene condemned euen by generall Councels for heretikes Where I saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops Bristowe saith if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme I would not so say But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke who died soudenly but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things appeareth but the contrarie Where I saide that to beleeue the Catholike Church is not to beleeue all and euery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine Bristowe would haue me suppose the Apostles had said Credo S. Romanam ecclesiam and then asketh howe I would haue construed it Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas c. But if the Apostles would haue taught vs to giue credite to the Church of Rome in all things they would haue taught vs to say Credo Romanae ecclesiae And Credo scripturis Canonicis duodecim Apostolis quatuor Euangelistis c. I giue credite to the holy scriptures to the twelue Apostles and to the foure Euangelistes For Credo with an Accusatiue case to signifie I giue credite howe so euer you deride my grammatication will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme as he is reported to haue done once for fiatur In the 35. Demand of Vnitie where I said the Church may be called the house of peace because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith Bristowe saith by this reason many olde heresies were with in the house of peace because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest may breake peace as that of quartadecimani who disagreed onely in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion might be in the house of peace as Irenaeus testifieth if obstinate contempt of generall order did not make a schisme and of a schisme an heresie as in the Donatistes Otherwise difference in a ceremonie as I said maketh not diuision of faith Bristowe saith yes if they holde their ceremonie necessarie But then they holde it not as a ceremonie or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull But that maketh not diuision Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie against Anicetus yet he was not diuided from him for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus nor Anicetus with him No more doe they among vs that differ in opinion of ceremonies except some fewe schismaticall heades that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes Bristowe saith are such as may be among Christians as Augustine testifieth Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel if Bristowe may be beleeued If we might haue a Christiā generall Councel for such matters as are in controuersie among vs I doubt not but we should agree better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie remaineth still among you notwithstanding the Florentine Councel which you say most impudently that I confesse to haue resolued the matter when an other Councel and an other Pope at the same time
bin dāned for euer c. Which he saith also shal be my reply But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world he maketh his tormentes of minde whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vnto death which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched to be of no force except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ who feared so much bodylie death that many of his seruantes haue ioyfully imbraced and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse and that most lamentable complaint that God had forsaken him were for nothing but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse as Bristow writeth it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine and therefore we must needes acknowledge that he suffered more in the sight of God whose iustice he was to satisfie then he suffered in the sight of men And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me is answered why descendit ad inferos cometh after sepultus because the order of the Symbole is first to shew what suffered before men and then what hesuffered in the sight of God As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sinne c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vs with it then with those other blasphemies that Christ did dispaire in God or blaspheme God or commit some other sinne against God for our redemption which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes For which detestable slaunder if he haue no better ground then he sheweth let him remember that the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule I wil spare to amplifie though I lack no matter albeit that Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders as Iupiters Giantes then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts deriding myknowledge in amplification The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians Antidicomarianites who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians likewise cōdemned thē we to the Heluidians But let vs see his impudent quarels First I say As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ as we thinke it is true so because the scripture hath not reueiled it neither perteineth it vnto vs we make no question of it Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes which trobled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by the scriptures yet saith Bristow you forge a principle of onely scripture in their fauour Surely that principle as it is not forged so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures but within 4. lines afore I am contrary to my selfe where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture If I had to doe with a man of reason as I haue to do with a papist he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vnto saluatiō For otherwise I thinke many things to be true that are not conteined in the scriptures As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit learning honesty thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures but gathered by other reasons yet he saith I might which more honestie haue saide that it may be proued by scripture where she saith Luk. 1. Because I know no man that is saith he because I haue made a vow of virginitie A like matter that she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie although it so proue her vow But if Bristow were condēned or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow out of that place yea or any other place of the scriptures it were all one as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same Another poynt of that dishonor is where I controld Allen for excepting the mother of Christ when he speaketh of sinners which is all one as if he had said Christ was not a sauiour of his mother or that she had no neede of his saluation And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne because he saith against the Pelagians that he would haue no question of her for the honour of our Lord when he speaketh of sinnes For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her to ouercome sinne of all partes which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him 〈…〉 om it is certaine that he had no sin Denat grat 136. It is all one with Bristow to ouercome sinne to be voyde of all sinne What victorie is there without a battel if the flesh in the virgin Marie did not rebel against the spirite what victorie had she by grace But it is plaine Pelagianisme to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous The Pelagian nameth also ipsam etians domini c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour which he saith it is necessarie for godlines that we confesse that she was with out sinne But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will haue no question signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e but had grace to ouercome sinne yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners But Bristow perceiueth that I would not haue so answered seeing I affirme that by the reprehension of Christ Iohn 2. she did offend for he would neuer haue reproued his mother without a cause And said what haue I to do with thee woman except she had intermedled in his office more then of dutie she ought But Bristow would colour his reproofe two wayes one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what to me and thee O woman not vnderstanding the greek phrase which is by those words to refuse to haue to doe with one As the diuels Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What haue we to do with thee Iesus thou sonne of God and not as Bristowe translateth What to vs and thee Iesus c. But because Bristow saith that if Christ should meane that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother yet she were not discharged of error to moue him in a matter which belongeth neither to him nor her He sayth I might doe well to tell him what were those sinnes of hers I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnder colour of her motherly authoritie with matter apperteining to his diuine office of being Christ
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
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
to coâ—er the saide flesh because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence Beware Sander what you say lest you proue a Sacramentarie Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament another manner of presence then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them Yea it was a glorious and mysticall presence If you coulde holde you there wee shoulde soone bee agreed The eight is to confesse the reall presence and to denye adoration let them answere that defende such presence The ninth howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice siâ—h it is his bodye who is the propitiation for the world Nay howe grosse is this consequence seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice and by that one oblation found eternall redemption Heb. 9. 10. The â—enth grosse imagination is of him who teacheth that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered be wordes of promise and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him which teacheth a gift to be made deliuered and receiued when he which receiueth it is neuer the better for it Finally whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament it is grosse falshood and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures the sense of which and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode is the worde of God CAP. XXVI What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christs supper The Apologie toucheth briefely that the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greeke of some doth expressely forbidde vs that wee shoulde not basely occupie ouâ— mindes about the breade and wine set before vs Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large and gathereth great matters out of them Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa c. Againe here also in the holy table let vs not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vs but lifting vp our minde let vs vnderstand by faith That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be set on that holy table to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes and that we truely taking his owne preciouâ— bodie and bloud doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause wee taâ—e not much but litle that we may knowe we take not to fill vs but for holines Out of these wordes ten argumentes he hath to prooue or to helpe to prooue the reall presence of Christes body vnder the formes of bread and wine The first is that bread and wine are set on the table not to be basely considered ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore and a forlorne helpe and a miserable argument For the contrary doth followe the bread must not be basely considered ergo it is breade although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme The second argument is that seeing the wordes of consecration be past in respect of which the Councell sayeth the breade and wine must not be basely considered the wordes did not onely make them a Sacrament as in baptisme c. but also did worke some reall thing vnder the formes of bread and wine which remaineth still as long as the saide formes and signes remaine Nay rather the Councell signifieth that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof is not perfite before the vse and receite of it whereof it speaketh soone after and therefore is not to be basely considered as common breade and wine but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption as for the formes and signes and colours of breade and wine the Councell speaketh not one worde of them but of bread and the cuppe which be substances and not accidental formes The thirde We must vnderstand saith hee not by seeing but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith In deede that is the onely waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body bloud in the Sacrament The fourth We must beleeue that to be the Lambe of God which is on the holy table whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth but of that which is breade and wine and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen by faith Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ. The fifth The Lambe is there so that he is put laide and situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of another thing But if a man should aske you howe that may bee I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it and yet your wordes import a fimilitude Therefore seeing it is without example your position is after an imagined manner Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vnto vs by his holye mysteries as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme not that one thing is situated as another thing which is no where neither any such thing can bee shewed and therefore is nothing but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne The sixt The Lambe is so truely made present that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes vnbloudily Where haue you the worde outwardly or what argument haue you of an outwarde oblation except you thinke Priestes cannot offer but outwardly Naye rather in that the Councel sayth the Lamb is offered vnbloudily it signifieth that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes for without shedding of bloud there is no sacrifice for sinnes Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onely insacrificable sacrifice of Christe is celebrated in that holy action The seuenth After the sacrifice made the people doe partake with the altar which could not bee except a permanent substance were made by consecration The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ in the mysticall tokens of our redemption which ouerthroweth priuate Masse Communion in one kinde and transubstantiation and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite before it be receiued The eight Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ is to take it really and bodily The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking but of taking by faith when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ. The ninth taking of that which standeth before vs on the table is by the instrument of our bodies therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell A shamelesse collection of a false argument For that which standeth on the table the Councell calleth breade and the cuppe which is taken and deliuered externally and by corporall instruments the rest must be vnderstoode by
be with the armes of faith then with the lippes of the body who can not touch the wisedome of God But Sander once againe to make his matter good repeateth his ranke and rotten distinction of two giftes two giuers two manners of eating true meate and meate truely affirming meate truely to bee because it is receiued in at the mouth and goeth into the bodie after such sort as other meates doe although it nourish spiritually Where there is no effect of that he calleth meate truely but it is by plaine wordes of the Chapter ascribed to that which is called true meat which he consesseth may be receiued onely spiritually euen the vertue of raising vp our bodies for which cause hee woulde make the bodily eating to be necessarie He that beleeueth in mee hath life eternall and I will raise him vp againe in the last day Afterwarde he citeth Hilarie who presseth the word verè against the Arrians But yet Sander translateth him falsely For to make it seeme that Hilarie spake of such bodily eating as hee doeth he turneth these words Haec accepta atque hausta efficiunt these thinges taken and swallowed whereas he should say these things that is the flesh and bloud of Christ being taken and drunken do cause this that both Christ is in vs and wee in him which must needes be taken for eating and drinking spiritually For eating drinking his flesh corporally Sander confesseth to haue no such effect Howe Christ tarieth in vs naturally and how we truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie I haue spoken before and these places of Hilarie are discussed more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins lib. 2. Cap. 20. 2â— by which it may appeare that Hilary taught no corporall maner of receiuing but sub sacramento carnis communicandae vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated verè sub mysterio truly vnder a mysterie and so as therebie Christ of necessitie dwelleth in vs and wee in him The last auctor is Gregory Nyssenus in vita Mosis Puro defaecatóque animo coelestem cibum sumere c. To take the heauenly meate with a pure and cleane minde The which meate sayth he no sowing brought forth vnto vs by the art of tilling the grounde But it is breade prouided for vs without seede without sowing without any other worke of man It flowing from aboue is founde in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely ment by this Historie of Manna is not a thing without a bodie For by what meanes can a thing without a body be made meate vnto the body The thing which is not without a body is by all meanes a bodie Here saith Sander Nyssenus proueth the truth of Christes body by the truth of the eating thereof which must be really taken into our bodies by our mouthes or else Nyssenus faileth in his whole discourse which is a shamelesse manifestly For Gregory saith expressely we muste take that heauenlie meat with a pure and cleane minde of taking it into our bodies by the mouth he speaketh not He gathereth that Christes body is a true body not because it is bodily eaten but because it is meate vnto our bodies which yet as spiritual meate nourisheth spiritually as Sander confessed euen nowe How strong the argumenâ— of Nyssenus is I force not but he neither affirmeth neither any thing can rightly bee gathered out of him which we doe not confesse and acknowledge in as ample maner as he That Christ hath a true body and that his flesh is heauenlie meate indeede to nourish the whole man which must be receiued with a pure and cleane minde not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed downe our throates CAP. XVI By the manner of our tarying in Christ it is proued that wee receiue his reall flesh into our bodies The tarying of Christ in vs and wee in him Chry 〈…〉 sostome in Ioan. H. 46. calleth a mingling with him which Cyril declareth by a similitude of powring waâ—â— vpon melted waxe in Ioan. lib. 4. Ca. 16 and of a litle leaue 〈…〉 which tempereth the whole lump of dowe so a litle of the blessing draweth the whole man into it selfe and filleth vs with h 〈…〉 grace and so doeth Christ dwell in vs we in him By a litle of that blessing Cyril meaneth a smal portion of the sacramentall bread or that which semeth bread as Sander will haue it And by these interpretations saith he it cannot be auoided but that the heauenly food which we receiue into our mouthes is the reall substance of Christs flesh For it is called benedictio the blessing which worde is not meant of an inward vertue comming from heauen but of that which seemeth bread and is visibly receiued To all this I answere first that the termes of mingling and similitudes of powring waxe of leauen must haue a spirituall vnderstanding or else they will breede monstrous absurdities And vnto the termâ— blessing I say it is taken for the externall Sacrament euen as the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ. c. by the figure synecdoche of the most principall parte of the Sacrament not in respect of that which seemeth breade and is visibly receiued but of the spirituall blessing whereof they are partakers which receiue the Sacrament worthily Therefore saith Cyrill a litle blessing draweth vs into it and filleth vs with his grace and so Christ tarieth in vs and we in him I aske howe but by his grace For Sander wil confesse that which seemeth bread to tarie but a little while in vs likewise that the bodie of Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the kindes or shewes of bread and wine tarie in vs Where fore the tarying of Christ by grace in vs proueth not his reall receiuing of Christs flesh into our bodies Yea Sander saith himself A litle of that blessed foode being receiued worthily of vs is not so properly said to tarie in vs as we to tariâ— in it for that though it be small in forme yet in vertue it is great I pray thee Sander tell vs what is that blessed food thou speakest of which doeth not properly tarie in vs For of his flesh Christ saith that it is meate in deede that hee tarieth in him which eateth it And what is that which is smal in forme the bodie of Christ or the external sacrament which thou callest the shewes of bread and wine which in deede are small in forme The bodie of Christ I suppose thou art not so mad to contract into smaller quantitie then it is and as for the accidents or shewes of bread and wine what vertue is in them And in deede that onely worde of Cyrill A litle of the blessing meaning thereby the externall Sacrament for the internall vertue thereof ouerthroweth Popish transubstantiation carnall manner of receiuing into the mouth For by a little of the blessing
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needes be reserred to corpus and cannot be referred to figura corporis And heere hee obtesteth that he may be instructed wherein he doth misconstrue the wordes I haue already satisfied his requeste and further I say he doth without all Grammar Rhetorike Logike Philosophie and Diuinitie referre hoc to corpus which is to bee referred to that thing which hee had in his hande which by their owne Popishe diuinitie could bee nothing but breade before hee had spoken out the wordes of consecration As for him that will lay the figure in the Verbe 〈◊〉 to take it for significat Sander counteth him an ignorant man because it must bee resolued by est significant and then the reason of signifying shall be founde in the nowne bodie rather then in the verbe Is for which cause Occolampadius admitted either the one or the other that is est for significat or copus for signum corporis In deede the matter is not great for the sense but when you call vs to construing the words by Grammar But taking the proposition thus Hoc est significans corpus meum I saye the reason of signifying consisteth not in the worde Bodie but in the subiect of the proposition which is the signe of the bodie although significans followe the Verbe est For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread the passion signified pertayneth to the bodie Where Sander challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendome to finde another construction I appeale to all the Grammarians in the worlde whether these wordes Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur may not be construed grammatically as wel as these other examples out of Genesis Exodus and a thousand more of like that might be added The 19. circumstance of the Verbe facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice The Verbe facere which signifieth most generally making and doing he will haue now to signifie offring sacrifice because that is the most excellent deede that can bee made which is a madde reason if Christ which doth alwayes the best thinges shoulde be saide to offer sacrifice so often as he saide facere For euerie thing that he did was the best in all respects that he did it But to prooue that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice he quoteth two places of Scripture but reherseth neither of both for shame the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites ego faciam bouem alterum Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice but to prepare or dresse or make ready an oxe or at the least is taken for interficere to kill an oxe which afterwarde is laide on the woâ—de and offered by inuocation The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doues faciet vnum pro peccato alterum in holocauslum he shall prepare the one for a sinne offering and the other to be a burnt offering where facere signifieth as before to make readie by killing drawing washing and dressing as the Lawe prescribed The same Hebrewe verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche is vsed in both places beeing spoken of the Calfe that Abraham made readie for his guestes the olde interpreter turneth by the verbe coquo which signifieth to dresse as a cooke dresseth Genesis 18. Wherefore we haue not yet founde facere in the scripture for sacrificare to offer sacrifice But Sander saying it skâ—leth not whether it be ioyned with another worde in the accusatiue or ablatiue case or stande alone doth insinuate that although in scripture it cannot bee prooued to haue that signification yet in some other writer it is vsed for sacrificare ioyned with a nowne of the ablatiue case namely in Virgil Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse venito where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice but vnderstand oblationen or rem diâ—â—nam or some such like worde But in our texte the circumstance of deedes and words saith he do make it so to signifie First because the 14. day at euening hee began the blessed sacrifice of his passion Secondly hee hath offered the olde Paschal Lambe the chiefe sacrifice of the Lawe These two circumstances shew it was time to go about his only sacrifice on the crosse they proue not that he offered another sacrifice at the table Thirdly hetoke breade and wine into his handes part of the sacrifice of Melchisedek I answere the scripture telleth vs not of any such sacrifice of Melchisedek Fourthly he blessed and gaue thankes wherein he consecrateth his owne bodie the onely sacrifice of mankinde I answere his owne bodie had no neede of consecration hee consecrated breade to bee a sacrament of his bodie which was not the onely sacrifice for mankind which was but once and no more offered or to be offered Not that he should oftentimes offer vp himselfe saith the Apostle Heb. 9. ver 25. wherefore his commaundement hoc facite doe this is not to make a sacrifice of Christs bodie which hee made not But Cyptian saith Sander taketh the verbe facere so lib. 2. Ep. 3. Iesus Christus c. Iesus Christ our Lord and God himself is the hiest priest of God the father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the father Et hoc fieri 〈◊〉 sui commemorationem praecepit and hath commaunded this thing to be done in his remembrance That fieri signifieth heere not offerri but generally hath relation to all that Christ did not onely the whole argument of the Epistle which was against ministring with water onely but also the verie wordes following which Sander hath fraudulently cut off declare sufficiently vtique ille saccrdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur c Verily that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ which imitateth that which Christ hath done and then he offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ himselfe to haue offered Nay that Cyprian meaneth not that Christ in his supper did offer his owne bodie in sacrifice to his father for redemption of he worlde but onely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and commaunded the same to bee kept in remembrance of his passion Cyprian himselfe testifieth in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the passion of our Lorde wee ought to doe nothing but that which hee himselfe did Note heere the sacrifice which Cyprian offered was the passion of Christ as well as the bodie of Christ but it was not the passion of Christ properly therefore it was not the bodie of Christ properly I might alleage other places out of that Epistle to refell the impudencie of Sander
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
supper more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes CAP. III. The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen 〈…〉 proued out of the new Testament The Apostle saith the vnworthie receiuer eateth and drinketh damnation not putting a difference betweene our Lordes bodie and other meates saith Sander And this difference is in two pointes the first in due preparation of our selues which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God the seconde is in respect of the substance of the meate that is receaued which is to be honored and adored I answere the earthly substance is not to be adored the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present and not vppon the earth and as well in Baptisme as in the supper But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. â—8 saith hee eateth vnworthily who considereth not as it behooueth the greatnes of the things set forth not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift Hee speaketh not of the effect saith Sander but of the substance of the Sacrament because he saith afterwarde If thou doest learne diligently who is s 〈…〉 foorth thou needest to account nothing else I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament that is Christ yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnder the formes of bread and wine for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes both of the olde Testament and the newe Christ washeth vs in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vs in his supper and hee purgeth vs with his bloode as verily as hee feedeth vs with his bodie and bloode Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing when he saith Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood we drinke in a mysterie For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie is to drinke it spiritually by meane of a Sacrament euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth is false and hath â—o ground nor consequence wee must iudge the subâ—â—ance of this Sacrament as the substance of him that â—s Gâ—d therefore wee must adore the substance of this â—acrament as God For admit that I must adore the boâ—ie of Christ which is God yet it followeth not that I â—ust adore it vnder the visible formes of the breade and â—ine For the body of Christ which as Irenae us saith â—s the heauenly part of this sacrament is in heauen and â—ot vnited to the bread and wine or to the shapes of theÌ„â—n personall vnion more then the bloode of Christ or â—he holy Ghost vnto the water in Baptisme yet I must â—dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bapâ—isme as that which is God or in personall vnion vnited â—o God as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour But Chrysostome saith further in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light life I answere this is nothing else but the effect of our redemption whereof we are assured by participation of that table As for the heauenly substance that it is in heauen Chrysostome sufficiently declareth when hee affirmeth in the same Homily that we must become eagles and flee into heauen for where the dead bodie is thither wil the eagles be gathered Wherefore the adoration that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vnto the outward elementes which if Sander cannot shewe hee laboureth in vaine to tell vs of the true substance of the sacrament which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ vnto the worthie receiuer but not personally vnited to that breade and wine or the shapes of them But nowe let vs heare what he hath to say out of Saint Augustine Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium who answereth the question Whether they doe better that receaue the communion euerie day or they which at certaine times onely Neuter eorum exhonorat c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour if each of them striue who may honor best the most healthfull sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house the other by saying Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes Manna tasted to euerie man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to bee iudged concerning the receiuing of that sacrament into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honor sake doeth not take it euery day an other for honors sake dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie As Manna would no loothsomenes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue beene vnworthily receiued of them Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discerne this thing from other meates by a veneration singularly due For streight when he had said he eateth drinketh damnatioÌ„ to himself be said moreouer Not discerning our Lordes bodie the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently marked This place to Sander seemeth merueilous notable for honor due to the sacrament And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme is an heretike and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost or as the bloode of Christ is an idolater But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all but onely such as in which I dissent from him In the fourth obseruation he noteth that we must striue to honor the sacrament whether by this meane or that it skilleth not so it be honored If he vnderstand of those two meanes of which Augustine speaketh I agree with him if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament I say he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine In the fifth obseruation he saith If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine hee would neuer exhort vs to bee so carefull howe to honor a meere creature were it neuer so great a signe I answere we honour not a meere creature when we honour the sacrament for his sake that instituted the same for we honour God and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine We honor not a meere creature when we honor a magistrat and yet the magistrate in substance is a man In the ninth obseruation he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
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
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