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.
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
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
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
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
them for triall of the greatest controuersies that are betweene vs of iustification by grace and not by merite of workes of the Popes antichristian supremacie of the Lordes supper of worshipping of images and many other controuersies As for that brabbling of conuerting of nations by them or vs it is not worth the while but a matter of meere contention which can not be decided but by triall whether they or we holde the true faith of the Gospell for into that were all nations conuerted that were turned by the true Apostles As for the conuersion of any nation into false Christianitie proueth not the conuerters to be Apostles But Bristowe bragging of their wonderfull conuersion of nations of India and Affrica which no man reporteth but lying Friers and shamelesse Papistes seemeth to denie that any were conuerted vnto false religion by any false Apostles or Heretikes And first where I saide there are people in Aethiopia which by circumcision and obseruation of the lawe declare that they were conuerted by the false apostles Bristowe opposeth the authoritie of Eusebius reporting the conuersion of Aethiopia to haue beene of the right stampe c. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so smal a countrie that it were not possible for one peece to be conuerted into true Christianitie and another part into corrupt That there are such people as I saide Munster in his Geographie of Aethiopia doth testifie As for the fable of their Emperours submission and the Abbots approbation of Poperie in all pointes may serue to play mocke holiday among the Papistes they can haue no credite among vs. As great a mockerie it is that Bristow abuseth the saying of Irenaeus concerning the Church of Rome in his time lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua c. In which alwaies of them that are round about hath bene kept that tradition or deliuerie of doctrine which is from the Apostles But the praise of the Romane Church of that time is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time which hath forsaken that tradition and embraced newe doctrine neuer heard of from the Apostles daies vnto the time of Irenaeus Where I say it is manifest that the nations of the Alanes Gothes and Vandales were first conuerted by the Arrians Bristowe replieth that in so saying I declare that I neuer read the ecclesiastical stories such is Bristows Logike It were possible I had read them and forgotten them But what could I either reade or remember in the places by him quoted First Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said that Vlphilas Bishop of the Gothes assented to an Arrian or neutrall confession giuen at Constantinople whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus which was Bishop of the Gothes and being present in the Nicene Councel had subscribed thereto he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice First of the Alanes Vandales here is no word nor in any of the places folowing of the Gothes it is said that Theophilus sometime their Bishop was of right faith and Vlphilas also before his subscription and consequently a fewe that were conuerted to Christianitie before the heresie of Arius But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Gothes that was conuerted and of the second also lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted There were two nations of the Gothes the one gouerned by Phritigernes the other by Athanarichus Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus sought aide of Valens the Arrian Emperor and obtaining it put Athanarichus to flight Quae causa fuit c. Which was the cause saith Socrates that verie manie of the Barbarians receiued the Christian faith For Phritigernes that he might shewe him selfe thankefull for his benefite receiued of the Emperor beganne to embrace his religion and to exhort his people to doe the same And for that cause manie Gothes which then to please the Emperors humour had addicted them selues to the Arrian sect vnto this time cleaue fast vnto it At the same time Vâ—philâ—s Bishop of the Gothes inuented the Gothian letters and as soone as he had turned the holie Scripture into their tongue he purposed that the barbarous people should learne the holie Oracles of God But as soone as Vlphâ—las had taught the Christian religion not onely to them which obeyed Phritigernes but also to them that were vnder Athanarichus the same Athanarichus mouing persecution put to death diuers of the Arrian sect c. The same historie reheâ—rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion At verò non istam c. But truely I doe not thinke that this was the onely cause whie the whole nation of the Gothes vnto this time is adioyned to the Arrians but that Vlphilas their bishop although in the beginning he dissented nothing from the Catholike Church yet afterward in the reigne of Constantius through lacke of knowledge he was present at the Councel held at Constantinople with Eudoxius and Acacius which were of the number of Bishops that had bene in the Nicen Councel And so being become an Arrian separated the whole nation of Gothes froÌ„ the Catholike faith This storie sheweth that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conuersion of the Gothes for Vlphilas the Bishop of those fewe that were before that time christened being long before peruerted into Arrianisme was the principall cause of turning both the nations vnto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme But Theodoret â—aith Bristowe lib. 〈◊〉 ca. 37. Who was a Catholike Bishop of purpose to take from the Arrians that vaine bragge of theirs sheweth that the Gothes were first Catholikes and not as you say first conuerted by the Arrians but only by false informations too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas being an other Balaam lead out of the way This purpose Bristowe dreameth of for no such appeareth in his wordes cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium c But my thinke I shall do a thing worth the labour if I shal shew to them that knowe not howe the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians And then sheweth that by persuasion of Eudoxius Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Gothes which before were lightened with the beames of diuine knowledge entred into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens and so deceiued the whole nation Where Theodoret saith nothing contrarie to other histories which shewe that Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Gothes that was vnder him vnto Arrianisme and after Vlphâ—las turned the other nation the was vnder Athanarichus vnto the same corrupt forme of Christianitie sauing that he is contrarie to Socrates and Sozomenus which affirme that Vlphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Councel of Constantinople in the daies of Constantius which reigned before Valens manie yeres That I said of them that were conuerted by the Nouatians and Donatists Purg. 337. Bristow vnderstaÌ„deth of whole nations requireth my histories autors to proue that I
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
Caluine c. Because I knowe not how Illyricus and such contentious persons as he expoundeth the annointing in Saint Iames but referre them to aunswere for them selues therefore I speake contrary to my selfe where I say they differ not in faith from the Lutherans 41 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian mans conscience Ar. 86. Contra The Church is the â—ay of trueth If that argument of the Church without triall which is the Church might take place it would serue you both for a sword and a bucklar The church saith it and we are the church Therefore it is true Pur. 367. It seemeth Bristowe is beside himselfe in coyning of contradictions These words The Church is the stay of truth for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place but his owne addition although in other sense I confesse the Church is the stay and piller of truth not that all is true which is alwaies in the Church but that truth can not be preserued on earth by the Church 42 Among the arguments that Augustine vseth against the Pelagians one though the feeblest of an hundred is that their heresie was contrarie to the publique praiers of the church Contra All other persuasions set aside hee prouoketh onely to the Scripture to trie the faith and doctrine of the church namely in beating downe the schisme of the Donaistes and the heresie of the Pelagians Where also he contradicteth him selfe againe in shewing the reason whie he argued against the Donatistes of only Scripture but against the Pelagians of the churches praiers also The Pelagians graunted them to be of the church that so praied And therefore when Augustine had to doe with the Donatistes that challenged the church vnto them selues he setteth all other trials aside and prouoketh onely to the Scriptures Let the readers iudge for I can not imagine where there be should be so much as the shadowe of a contradiction gathered out of these wordes except he meane that he which prouoketh onely to the scriptures may not vse an hundreth argumentes out of them yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures and yet stand onely vpon the auctority of the scriptures 43 We stand for autoritie only to the iudgemeÌ„t of the holy scriptures Pu. 432. Contra The ground that we haue to persuade vs of the authoritie of gods booke is because we haue most stedfast assuraÌ„ce of Gods spirit for the autoritie of that booke with the testimonie of the true church in alages The church of Christ hath a iudgement to discerne the word of God from the writings of men The primitiue churches testimonie of the word of God we allow and beleeue You should bring a great preiudice against vs and passing wel prouide for the credit of your cause the discredit of ours if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitiue pure church for the space of a hundreth yeares after Christe or something out of any Authenticall writer which liued within one hundred yeares after the Apostles age Ar. 9. 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39. 42. The first proposition as in the place quoted is manifest is spoken of questions of doctrine and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God The last sentence You should bring c. being patched out of two places of my booke Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition for although we stand for auctority onely to iudgement of the holy scriptures yet we are content to giue you this aduantage against vs if you can bring any thing out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead 44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without colour or couerture the onely right order of ministration Contra in the next line I knowe the Papistes will flee to those wordes of the Apostle The rest I will set in order when I come That is manifest to be spoken of matters of externall comelinesse and therefore say we of the order of ministration Pur. 362. In rehearsing my wordes he leaueth out fiue lines of my saying betwene the words Couerture and The onely right c. which declare that I speake of the essâ—ntiall order of ministration against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the hoast for the quicke and the dead both generally and particularly and a solemne prayer for all departed in Christ to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament 45 The olde Doctors neuer heard Purgatorie named nor praier for the deade Pur. 438. Contra About S. Augustines time the name of Purgatorie was first inuented And long afore that also Montanus had in all points the opinioÌ„ of the Papists c. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet againe Before Chrysostomes time it was but a blinde error without a head Pur. 356. My wordes are of the heresie of Purgatory and my meaning of those olde Doctors in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a punie being younger almost by 300. yeares in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inueâ—ted yet the heresie was elder in Montanus How prayer for the deade came into the Church it was vncertaine in Chrysostomes time and therefore I say it was a blinde error without a heade 46 In Saint Augustines time Sathan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatorie Pur. 54. Contra That error of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded vp in his time Pur. 161. And specially here cap. 3. pag. 14 saying And this I thinke is the right pedigree of praiers for the dead and Purgatorie where he putteth the very last generation of it to haue bene in S. Augustines time and the foundationlong afore Christes time It were a strange contradiction that could bee picked out of these two allegories laying the foundation and rifely budding seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building and budding is the first towardnesse of fruite As for the pedigree is not to the last generation as Bristow saith layed in Saint Augustines time but from the first auctor howe it was continued vnto Saint Augustines time since which there haue beene many dissents before popish Purgatory were throughly shaped and brought forth 47 M. Allen affirmeth that after mens departure the representation of almes by such as receiued it shall moue God exceedingly to mercy O vaine imagination for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor Pur. 242. 243. Contra Chrysostome alloweth rather almes that men giue before their death or bequeath in their Testament because it is a worke of their owne than that almes which other men giue for them howbeit also such almes are auaileable for the dead he saith Pur. 236. 237. That which Chrysostome speaketh of litle helpe wil not serue Allen to proue that almes shall moue GOD exceedingly to mercy 48 The auncient Doctors did holde the foundation Contra cap. 4 pag. 28. He
saith The third Councel of Carthage did define that it is vnlawfull to pray to God the Some and GOD the holy Ghost The Councel of Carthage by that decree denied neither the person nor office of Christ nor of the holy Ghost therefore they held the foundation 49 Here cap. 8. he saith that the iust of the olde Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death but to heauen immediatly Contra The fierie and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise was taken away by the death of Christ when he opened Paradise yea the kingdome of heauen whereof Paradise was but a sacrament vnto all beleeuers so that the penitent theese had passage into Paradise The vertue of Christes death extendeth to the old fathers for their saluation as much as vnto vs yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdome of heauen was the death of Christ by Gods ordinance appointed to worke righteousnesse for all the elect as well before the time of his suffering as since 50 Who so denieth the authoritie of the holy scriptures thereby bewraieth him selfe to be an heretike Contra I say not this here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretike to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames. As Martine Luther and Illyricus for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing My words be not alledged truely in neither of both propositions In the former they are these I will not gainesay but whoso denieth c. I doe not alwaies affirme that I will not gainesay I may be in doubt But to graunt that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint Iames to be a counterfet was not accounted an heretike Shall other mens account be ioyned to mine affirmation to charge me with contradiction Againe the former proposition Who so denieth c. If it be affirmed must be vnderstoode of such as denie the scriptures which are once receiued generally because they are contrary to his opinion If he meane the contradiction to be for that I say I will not excuse Martine and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint Iames for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing I must tell him that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them neither is foolish curiosity like by heresie Last of al where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to auoide a shameful absurditie ensuing of his affirmation he plaieth his old parts first in falsifying my words where I say to reduce he saith to redeeme secondly he saith that Allen speaketh of him that nowe leadeth a godly life but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance or satisfaction of his lothsome life past The very words of Allen be these This our aduersarie Math. 5. here signifieth our brother which hath iust quarell against vs in iudgemēt for that we would not giue eare vnto him sharply admonishing vs of our faults being therefore an aduersary to our vices and fleshly conuersation In which sort to vs that are flesh and bloud and ready to euill from our youth all be aduersaries that preach Christ the amendment of licentious maners repentance of our lothsome life past or else vse against vs the rod of correction and bodily punishment that our soules may be saued in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kinde of aduersary Christ counselleth and commandeth vs for our great good to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitorie life least all these meanes which he wrought to reduce vs to the perfection of a Christian godly life be as it were a witnesse of our contempt and him selfe our accuser before the Iudge that shall so iustly reward euerie man according to his deedes that is Christe him selfe to whome the father hath giuen all iudgement Nowe the wordes in which I reproue this absurditie of Allen are these But before we goe any further let vs see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before There we were told that Purgatorie serueth but for veniall sinnes or else for such mortall sinnes as by forgiuenesse in this life obtained are made veniall trespasses But here not onely vices and fleshly conuersation but also contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our lothsome life past c. are saide to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatorie to the vttermost farthing then the which no vice is more mortall nor further from forgiuenesse For he that not onely leadeth a lothsome life but also contemneth all those meanes that Christ hath wrought to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life I vse his owne wordes howe can he haue remission of his sinnes in this life and yet Maister Allen dare promise him that the tolleration of bandes in the prison of Purgatorie shall recompence his debt and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ. The twelfth Chapter A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke that they which delight in such a Gardiner may see his handie worke The first flower is that I say Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onely by the high Priest once in the yeare But Bristowe saith that sacrifice propitiatorie and for sinne are all one which sacrifice for sinne was offered not onely once in the yeare in the seast of expiation but also in many other feast dayes ordinarily and extraordinarily when so euer any occasion was ministred c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance or his malice Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie vnto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death Heb. 9 with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne saying they are all one When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie that the high Priest that day onely entreth into the holiest place that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel for all their sinnes once a yeare Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation of this principall sacrifice which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onely true sacrifice propitiatorie which our Sauiour Christ offered on the crosse once for al which proportion is obserued by the Apostle Heb 9. ver 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. c. Heb. 10. ver 11. 12. But where Bristow saith beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice Fulke findeth none but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe he affirmeth that which was neither said of me nor is truely collected of him For I saide that Cyprian in these termes sacrifice priest
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
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
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
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
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
in the vnitie of his body that is in the couiunction of Christian members the Sacrament of which body the faithful communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is to be said truely to eate the body of Christ and to drinke the bloud of Christ. De ciui Dei li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth Sacramento tenus reuera manducare corpus Christi to eate the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament and to eate the body of Christ in very deede Ergo they that eate the Sacrament onely eate not the body of Christ in very deede Therefore Christs gift is not onely in the Sacrament Iewel The fathers of the old law receiued the selfe same body that is now receiued of the faithfull Aug. de vtil pâ—n Cap. 1. Sander Augustine saieth the selfe same spirituall meate that is Christ by faith but not the same corporall meate which is the body of Christ Tract 11. in Ioan. Fulke Augustine saith not that the body of Christ is our corporall meat but that which answereth in proportion to Manna as a corporal meat namely bread and wine Tract 26. Sander But Tract 11. he saith Quid est Manna what it Manna I am saith Christ the liuing breade that came downe from heauen Fulke It followeth immediately Manna accipiunt fideles the faithfull receiue Manna therefore hee meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporall meate but for the bodye of Christe whiche is spirituall meate Sander But he sayeth further It is knowen what God had rained from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what Christians take Let them blush because they knowe not Let them passe ouer by the redde sea Let them eate Manna that euen as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit him selfe to them Therefore Iesus is eaten bodily of vs after baptisme Fulke I denye the argument except Manna be Iesus bodily If Manna be spiritually taken then Iesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna which Sander confesseth to be onely spiritually Sander But Catechumeni might so eate Christ that is spiritually Fulke They might not eate Christ in the Sacrament before they were baptized and therfore they were ignorant of that mysterie Iewell Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and bloud of Christ in baptisme whiles he findeth that vnitie which is signified by the Sacrament Therefore the faithfull eate Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament Apud Bedam 1. Cor. 10. Sander They are not partakers really but onely in the Sacrament of the supper in which if the body were not really present hee that is baptized shoulde not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christes supper because hee is not partaker of bread and wine but onely is made a member of that mysticall bodie which in the Sacrament is signified Fulke Beda knewe no such distinction of really spiritually Neither doeth he saye they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper but of the bodie and bloud of Christ in baptisme wherefore I knowe not whereof Sander dreameth Sander Augustine saith of heretikes and schismatikes de ciuit Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bonde of peace which is expressed in that sacrament The bond of peace expressed is not the wheaten cornes molded in one loaf but the bodie of Christ present really vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulke Alack poore sophistrie Christ is the bonde of peace but the bonde of peace is expressed in the externall Sacrament of breade and wine Although the wheaten cornes are not the bonde of peace expressed yet the bonde of peace is expressed by the wheaten cornes c. Sander Looke in my 5. booke Cap 5. Fulke Looke there for an answere CAP. V. Sander Master Iewell hath not replyed well touching the Capernaites Harding If Christ in S. Iohn had spoken tropically the Iewes and disciples who were vsed to figures would not haue said This is an hard saying Iewell His reason hangeth thus The Capernaites vnderstoode not Christ ergo his bodie is really in the Sacrament Sander No sir They vnderstoode Christ to speake without parables Christs wordes pertaine to the sacrament therefore his bodie is really in the Sacrament They vnderstood what Christ promised but they beleeued it to be either not possible or not conuenient Fulke The maior minor of your mishapen syllogisme are both false Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem c. They were afraide of his speache not vnderstanding they thought our Lord Iesus Christ had spoken some hard thing c. Sander S. Augustine saith they vnderstoode not because they beleeued not in Ioan. Tr. 27. Fulke What though infidelitie were the cause of their not vnderstanding yet he saith Non intelligeÌ„do scandalizati sunt By not vnderstanding they were offended ergo you saide falsely they vnderstoode what he promised And much lesse vnderstoode they the meane howe it should be perfourmed Iewel He said The bread which I will giue c. of spirituall eating It is the spirite that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith Augustine Sander See in my third booke Cap. 19. 20. Fulke See the answere in the same places Iewel Ye shal not eat saith S Augustine with your bodily mouth this bodie that you see c. I giue you a certeine Sacrament Sander Of this place I haue spoken at large lib. 6. Cap. 2. lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulk And I haue sufficiently answered in the same places Sander Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustines meaning Master Iewel hath false translations Fulke Sander heth foolish quarels master Iewell giueth the sense faithfully Iewel We haue a spirituall mouth taste eyes eares as Basil Leo Origen Tertullian say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the minde not of the bellie to beleeue in him that is to eat the liuing bread therefore Christs meaning is spirituall not reall Sander The fondest kind of reasoning in the world Christ is eaten both spiritually bodily Fulke Al these fathers meane only spiritual eating excluding all other carnal grosser maners of eatings Sander Doth not Tertullian say The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ to the ende the scule may be made fatt of God Fulke Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the externall Sacraments which haue the name of the things signified as of the signes of baptisme impositioÌ„ of haÌ„ds c. Iewel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who saith to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand plainly as the thinges be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing else Sander We vnderstand not so For wee seeing the forme of breade thinke vpon the bodie of Christ. Fulke But what did the Capernaites see whose vnderstanding you defende And what other thing do you vnderstand then is vttered in the wordes Iewel S. Augustine saith The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speach commanding vs to be partakers