their subtile craftie rash craze the concord of the bishops which cleueth together But there to plead their cause wher both they may haue accusers witnesses of their crime except to a fewe desperate men castawayes the authoritie of the bishops placed in Africa seemeth to be lesse which haue alreadie iudged of them by the weight of their iudgement condemned their conscience bounde with the snares of many trespasses Their cause already hath beene heard the sentence is alreadie pronounced of them neither is it congruent to the censure of priests to be reprehended by Leuits of mouable inconstant minde c. You see that Cyprian meant nothing lesse than to giue Cornelius bishop of Rome authoritie to reuerse the sentence of the bishops of Africa whose authoritie he iudged to be nothing lesse then the bishops of Rome or other places Moreouer Bristow saith that Cyprian doth also note in S. Stephan some little negligence but much more wilful obreption in those two lapsed bishops of Spaine Basilides Martialis who had concealed from him the trueth that in their supplication they should haue expressed which because they did not he saith well that their restitution by the Pope could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the bishopâ— of their owne prouince This which so plainly maketh for the Popes authoritit saveth Bristowe you are so blinde to bring against it Not so blinde but I can see that you acknowledge 〈…〉 e Pope iâ—â—udgement of bynding and loosing may 〈…〉 re But what I pray you maketh this for the Pope you 〈…〉 eane perhaps that Cyprian doeth graunt by impliâ—ation if the foresaide errour had not deceiued Stephaâ—â—s he had full authoritie to haue restored those two 〈◊〉 apsed bishops But Cyprian sayeth not so you hearde â—efore what his iudgement was of them that were condemned in one Prouince that their sentence could not â—e reuersed in another but if they woulde returne to the Church they should there be receiued vppon their â—epentance where they were first condemned and in this 4. Epistle he sayeth Quare etsi c. wherefore although some of our fellowe bishops there haue been moste welbeloued brethren which thinke the diuine discipline is to be neglected and doe rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis this thing ought not to trouble our faith You see that he reproueth Stephanus and such as tooke his parte for neglect of diuine discipline in communicating with those heretikes which were lawfully condemned in their owne prouince and therefore coulde not by any other bee restored As concerning the Councels of Africa Mileuis sayeth Bristowe the question between them and those other fiue Popes was not about the matters of the vniuersall church as for example matters of faith No was is not the Popes authoritie of you counted a matter of faith and of the vniuersall church although they agreed in all other matters But Bristow shameth not to say it was not about the Popes authoritie in receiuing of bishops appeales but what order the Nicene Councel had taken therein As though that counterfeit Canon was not alledged to iustifie the Popes authoritie in receiuing such appeales But there are examples you saye of appeales and namely of the Patriarkes of Alexandria and Constantinople but of which Patriarks to whom you shewe not yea S. Augustine him selfe you say vseth it as a plea That Cecilianus was readie to pleade his cause before other churches out of Africa Ep. 162. This prooueth not that Cecilianus although trusting in the innoceÌ„cy of his cause refused no indifferent iudges yet that he appealed to the Church of Rome and least of all to the singular iudgment of the Bishop of Rome but to all other churches And the appeales that were made in his cause were made to the Emperour and from the Bishop of Rome being once delegate of the Emperour to heare his cause with other Bishops vnto him the seconde time who gaue aliud uidicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum c. an other iudgement of A relate of other Bishops as it is plaine in the same Epistle But such appeales were lawfull saith Bristow by the councell Sardicense cap. 7. in the same Carthage councell cap. 3. whose authoritie none of those Africane Bishops did denie for the same Bishops were of it that were of the Nicene and Sainct Augustine chap. 7. did expresly admitte in the Canon of the inferiori appealing from their ownâ— Bishops In deede in the 3. chap. of the 6. Councell of Carthage that forged Canon of Bishops appeales was aledged which is nowe read for the 7. Canon of the Sardicense councell but it was alledged as a canon of the Nicene Councell and if it had beene a true canon of Sardica Councell why did not those Bishops alledge it as a Canon of Sardica as well as the other Canon of the inferiors appealing from their owne Bishop vnto the Bishops next adioyning seeing the Bishops of Africa and S. Augustine himselfe were so ready to yeelde to the authoritie of the Councell of Sardica Therefore it appeareth that the Canon of bishops appeales to Rome being first forged as a Canon of the Nicene Councell when it could not find any setling there was afterwarde foysted in the Sardicen Councell Thirdly saith Bristow these appeales were lawfull by the Nicene Councell also wherevppon you say verie insolently trusting ouermuch your lying LutheraÌ„ frinds the Magdeburgiens that S. Augustine his fellowes tooke those Popes with plaine forgery of the Canons of Nice and fetched them ouer the coles meetely wel for it Bristow will still defend that forged Canon for other there is none in the Nicen councell that alloweth such appeales As for the Magdeburgiens I neuer read theÌ„ but the report of the councels gathered by Peter Crab I haue read 〈◊〉 dosen yeares before I wrote against Allen. And in the end of the African Councel I read this Epistle of the councell to Celestinus byshop of the citie of Rome Domino dilectissimo honorabili fratri Celestino c. To our most welbeloued lord honorable brother Celestinus We Aurelius Palatinus Antonius Tutus Seruus dei Terentius Fortunatus Martinus Ianuarius Optatus Celticius Donatus Theasius Vincentius Fortunatianus and the rest which were present in the vniuersal AfricaÌ„ councel of Carthage We wold haue wished if as thy holynes hath insinuated by letters sent by our fellow elder Leo that you reioyced of the comming of Appiarius so we also might send with gladnes these writings of his purgation Verily both our and your chearfulnes should be now more certaine neither might seeme too much hasted and ouer-speedy which as yet had gon before aswell of one to bee heard as of one that is alredy heard Surely when our ho ly brother and fellow bishop Faustinus came vnto vs we gathered a Councell and beleeued that he was therfore sent with him that as by his helpe he had beene before restored to the Eldership so
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
sacrifice is made celebrated with prayer as Hierom saith by the pâ—iestes prayers What are then the wordes of consecration And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also was Domus orationis the howse of prayer Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer So is Tertullian answered Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth they say the same Yea doe Bristowe Is the sacrifice you offer the bodie of Christ Yea doth the conscience of the offerer sanctifie the body of Christ Out vpon thee filthie blasphemous dogge if thou dare affirme it But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine As though that were the question Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion no lesse then we doe in the masse What newes is this doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse I thinke euen the same for none that communicate with Caluine doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood and no more doe you although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it In the 25. demaund of Monkes where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes Bristowe saith in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes and Idolatrie we haue spoyled the Church of God of great vtilitie But he saith further they were votaries and so they be not in colledges of studentes their vowes were not such that could make them other then students they vowed to serue God vprightly and his Church when they were called and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same forsake this holie purpose haue smale commendation among studentes I know in time superstition preuailed and that which first was free at last became coact and that which was of conueencie was thought of necessitie euen as true religion declined and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition In the 27. demaund of Councels where I proue that Councels may erre First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel Bristowe saith the prayer is not in respect for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members when in the prayer they expresly declare their feare lest ignorance hath driuen them into error which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life but of their error in decrees seeing the prayer is appropriate vnto the Councel And that the wordes going before after do manifestly declare Te in nostris principiis c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes that is that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error that to our perfect desires thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke And because our conscience accusing vs we doe fainte for feare lest either ignorance hath drawne vs into errror or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vs to decline from iustice therfore we desire thee we pray thee that if we haue drawne vnto vs any offence in the celebritie of this Councell thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it and to make it remissible Who would pray thus in the name of the whole Councell which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error That I alledge out of Augustine de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed the later by the former Bristowe vnderstandeth of Councells not confirmed by the Pope which may be reformed euen by the see Apostolike alone That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells where lacketh any necessarie confirmation This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops in possibility of erring in doctrine not excepting the Bishop of Rome then prouinciall last of all generall Councells onely the scripture cannot be amended as that which hath no error in it Where I saide the Councells are receiued because they decreed truly according to the worde of God and not the truth receiued because it was decreed in Councells Bristowe saith I might as well say the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures But I say the comparison is not like For truth is not so necessarilie bound vnto generall Councells as it is to the holy scriptures and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures It followeth not so of councells that what soeuer they haue decreed is truth although the Bishop of Rome haue confirmed them Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine which is an argument sufficient to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions The pope caÌ„not erre The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope cannot erre In the 28. demaunde of the See Apostolike where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing the Bishop of Rome were not heretikes Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure which is no matter in question saith he vsurped no authoritie nor was so charged but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent it would seeme likewise to many who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops that withstoode Victor confessed that he had authoritie ouer them or that he could not erre But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure seeing he followeth as he thought the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles Likewise Eusebius saith that Victor was sharply reproued of many and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce whom he gouerned Yea he saith expresly that Victor
which then did persecute the church of God in some places in generall the citie of the diuel that is to saye the whole body of the reprobat Bristowe asketh if it be not a perillous point to touch the citie of Rome in saint Iohns time when it did persecute the church of Rome As though S. Iohn telleth a storie of his owne time and not a prophecy of the time to come Ambrose therfore or whosoeuer writeth that coÌ„mentarie interpreteth that prophecy Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the citie of Rome which was not onely of persecution but of seduction But the vndoubted Ambrose if you remember sayeth Bristowe of the church of Rome sayeth In al things I couet to followe the Romane church De sac lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bounde to followe the church of Rome he sayeth immediately after Sed tamen nos homine sensum habemus c. But yet we being men haue vnderstanding Therefore that which is more rightly obserued elsewhere we also do rightly obserue We follow the Apostle Peter him selfe we sticke vnto his deuotion what doth the church of Rome answere to this Verily Peter him selfe which was a priest of the church of Rome is author to vs of this assertion In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in that they vsed not to wash mens feete in baptisme Vniustly indeede he vrgeth that ceremonie as necessarie but yet he sheweth that his iudgement was that the church of Rome might receiue a custome contrarie to yâ— scripture Beside this saith Bristow he calleth Peter the first the foundation in the verie same place where say you Pur. 320 he affirmeth that Peter is not the foundation Howsoeuer I deale with my reader you deale vnfaithfully with me for my wordes are these He affirmeth the not Peter but the faith the confession of Peter is the foundation of the church and that the primacy of Peter was a primacie of faith not of honour of confession not of autoritie or higher order De incaern dom Ca. 4. 5. Ambrose his words are Cap. 4. Vos autem c. But what do you say of mee Immediatly Peter being not vnmindful of his place he exercised the primacy The primacie of confessing truely not of honor the primacie of faith not of order or degree And Cap. 5. Faith is the foundation of the church For it was not said of Peters flesh but of his faith that the gates of death shal not preuailc against it his confession ouercommeth hel The former of these places Brist corrupteth by adding this worde worldly to the words of Ambrose honor degree aâ— though Ambrose had meant that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor degree being equal to his fellowes in worldly honour and degree But such folly was farr froÌ„ Ambrose to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor degree when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignitie at all But he expresseth wherein all his primacie was when he sayeth he was first in confession first in protestation of his faith not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellowes who all helde the same faith and confession And this of Peters person neuer a worde of his successours which yet are not onely the bishops of Rome when they were at the best but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles Hierom Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places in which the Apostles sat in person but by authoritie of teaching receiued from them with soundnes of doctrine To the later place Bristow saith the diuel may preuaile against the fleshe of a Pope but his faith but his confession as well in all articles that be nowe in coÌ„trouersie as in those at that time wil stand when they shall all be sonke downe into their due place But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of euery bishop of Romes faith and confession but onely of the singular faith and confession of Peter Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God which is against all sectes and heresies Dies me citius c. the day should sooner faile mee then the names of heretikes and diuers sectes Yet this faith is generall against them all that Christ is the sonne of God both sempiternall of his father and also borne of the virgine Let nowe the reader iudge whether of vs hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose Fourthly he gathereth that I saye in diuerse places that Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Alexandrinus Cyprianus the Councell of Africa and Socrates the historiographer did preach or write against the Popes authoritie when it first began to aduance it selfe in Victor Cornelius Stephanus Anastasius Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus To this Bristow answereth First that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church therfore I am against my selfe in making other Popes to be antichrist for claiming such authoritie as these did Whereto I replye the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discouer the mysterie of iniquitie those later Popes that are antichrists did openly shewe them selues in the temple of God as God and therefore great difference Secondly Bristowe answereth that all those writers did communicate with those Popes therefore our separation cannot be excused I replye their ambitious vsurpation tended not to heresie and therfore they were content to admonish them but the latter Popes from whome we dissent are fallen into open heresie and apostasie Thirdly he saith that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authoritie as he wil shewe of Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Cyprian Cap. 10. in 28. demaunde where I will shewe that they did write against such vniust authoritie as those bishops did claime Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place hee sayeth that hee exhorteth Cornelius to bee as stout in not loosing certeine African heretikes as their owne bishop had beene in bynding of them By which hee woulde haue men thinke that Cornelius had authoritie to vndoe that which Cyprian had done as the Pope in these dayes taketh vpon him But Cyprian yeldeth to no such authoritie but maruelleth that Cornelius was anye thing moued with the threatening of those heretiks to receiue them into his churâ—â— vnder pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediatly of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a fewe heretikes counting it sufficient that Cornelius knewe before that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa saying of their gadding to Rome Cùm statutum sit c. Seing it is decreede of vs all and that it is meete also right that euery mans cause shoulde be heard there wher his crime is committed and a portion of the flock is ascribed to euery pastor which euery one should rule and gouerne as he will giue an account of his doing to the Lord verily they ouer whome we are set must not gad about nor with
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
intercession of the Apostles in whose honour it was offered at their reliques there is no word although by any figure you vnderstand the Emperors tombe whereof he speaketh to signifie his soule which is rather a rhetoricall exornation shewing howe his tombe was honoured as cap. 67. he sheweth that all the princes of the armie and the Senate worshipped his dead bodie euen as they did when he was aliue which vaine pompe he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God to be giuen to the Emperors But in effect you can shewe no more of Constantius fauouring of your religion but in that one error of praying for the dead to which I oppose his commandement laide vpon Metriades bishop of Rome to heare the cause of Cecilianus Eâ—seb lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Councel de lit Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeale from the bishop of Rome and other like matters shewing his souereigne authoritie ouer the bishop of Rome and other Prelates I said that although Theodoret report that Theodosius the younger praied for his parents foules yet the storie saith not that he praied to Saint Chry so stome for them Bristow opposeth the Tripartite storie and Theodoret in Latine lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter 36. where Theodoret in his owne words speaking of the tombe of Chrysostome saith of Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He setting vpon the tombe both his eyes and forehead offered a supplication for his parents desiring pardon for them that had done iniurie of ignoraunce These wordes inforce not praier to Saint Chrysostome although praier to the dead was at that time erroniously practised That Allen citeth out of Ambrose of Honorius standing by the holie altars while the solemnitie of his fathers funerall was celebrated maketh little to proue Honorius to haue bene a Papist although in that point I denie not which can not yet of those wordes be proued that he might be occupied in praier for the deade according to the errour of his time One errour can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith who is knowne to haue bene of that religion which Ambrose setteth foorth in his writings contrarie to Papistrie in the most and most necessarie pointes vnto saluation The 40. dayes minde which Allen would begge out of that place to resemble their Popish monethes minde I haue sufficiently reproued by shewing the continuance of the fourtie daies solemnitie without intermission That the last day was one of the fourtie and kept with singular solemnitie as is vsuall in such cases which Bristowe opposeth can not make a iust resemblance of the Popish mone thes mindes which are a renouation of a mourning or solemnitie intermitted Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the generall desection to haue bene of our religion Bristowe in a lurious rage noteth in the margent Sce the impudent heretike them whome he condemned before But who is this impudent heretike that condemned those Christian Emperors before or where is there any word of their condemnation Is there no difference betweene reprouing of an errour and condemuing of the person But let that passe among Bristowes impudent and malicious slaunders The Kings of the earth saith he haue not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon when they humblie adored the Church of Rome and licked the dust of her feete as they are commaunded by the Prophet Esai 49. 60. c. This shall be confessed when it is proued that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christe and not the strumpet of Babylon although the Prophet speake not of bodily bowing kissing or licking Where I name Ziska Procopius and George king of Bohemia defenders of the Protestants Bristow saith it was an 100. yeares before the name much more the religioÌ„ of the Protestants was coined as though their religioÌ„ might not be before that name was vsed to cal theÌ„ by But that Edward the third was a Wicleuist who euer heard saith Bristow And who euer heard me say or write that he was a Wicleuist I saide Ar. 34 that king Edward other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause and for that you may read at large M. Foxes storie of Wickleue CoÌ„cerning the booke of Caro lus Magnus against images I haue aunswered Sander Bristowe else where The booke of Berttam is entituled ad Carolum magnum although Trithemius say it was vnto Charles the king brother of Lotharius the antiquitie of which inscription is elder then Trithemius except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fansie durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence transubstantiation therefore Charles the King or Emperor did hold this opinion He that will read the booke shal see he doth plainly expresse his iudgement against the corporall presence and as for transubstantiation there was no question thereof in his time In the 21. Demaund of Churches where I say the Papistes had wonne no more if we could shewe neuer a Church but such as haue bene builded by Papistes and to Popish vses then the idolaters against the Apostles which could shewe no temples but builded vnto idols Bristowe saith the challenge were not one because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion we renounce Popish religion but not all their Churches The cause whâ—e the Apostle renounced their temples was for that manie of them were not for the vse of Christian religion although if credite may be giuen to our countrie histories the Pagans temples were conuerted to Christian Churches both by the Brytons Saxons But those conuerters saith Bristowe were the founders of them be it so yet were they not the builders of them Yet such as were builded by Christian princes were builded that their soules might be praied for in them as that Church of the twelue Apostles builded by Constantine the great whereof mention is before c. Of so manie Chruches as he builded onely in building that one he had that erronious conceit Where I say the olde Churches were builded onely in the honor of God and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures Saints and Angels Marie wellymet quod Bristowe They were called Basilicae Martyrum ApostoloruÌ„ the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches c. Ergo They were not builded to the honour of God onely but to the honour of creatures when the olde writers whome I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirme that a temple belongeth onely to God And Augustine expresly denieth that they were the temples but the memories of those Martyrs whose names they bare and as foraltars he vtterly denieth them vnto creatures Where I said that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome Bristowe crieth blessing on Iouinian Whie Bristowe Was there neuer any Bishop of Rome married Was there no priest married in Hierome and Augustines time although Iouinian could not persuade
and sale of the golden vessels if they had any as witnesseth S. Ambrose in the place before cited Where I affirme the auncient Churches were without images because the tempse of God and images can not agree c. Bristowe saith I may roll in such rhetorike before fooles that receiue our absurde principles to wit That the idols of the Pagans were images of the Christians But thinketh Bristowe that any of our auditors is so foolish to beleeue so absurde a principle as he is malitious in feigning vs to affirme such an impossible paradoxe I am sure it neuer entred into the opinion of any preacher to imagine that the idols of the Pagans were the images of Christians But this we say that Popish images although they be not the same that were the images of the Heathen yet they are as abhominable idols as theirs the worshipping of them as much to be abhorred of all true Christians as the worshipping of the images of the Gentiles and for proofe of that neither you nor Sander shall euer finde me non plus as you say you make me by denying that absurd principle which is of your owne fantasticall imagination and not of our ignorant and vnlearned affirmation as you feigne it As touching our liuings we are nothing discouraged by the storie of Ambrose de Basilicis tradendis but that we may enioie them with a better conscience then you compare vs with the Arrians and our most Christian Prince to the Arrian Empresse In the 22. Demaund of seruice of the Church howe vainly he affirmeth the seruice of the primitiue Church to be the same that the Popish Church now hath because two errors of praier for the dead and to Saintes were in the olde Church of three or foure hundreth yeares after Christ I will not tarie to declare But where I note out of S. Augustine affirming that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs seeing praier is a sacrifice that therefore it ought to be offered only to God and that Martyrs were not called vpon in the time of the sacrifice but onely named for remembrance Bristowe to proue that they were called vpon contrarie to the expresse wordes of Augustine citeth Augustine Tract in Ioan. 84. speaking of the blessed Martyrs Non sic eos commemoramus c. We doe not so rehearse them as other that rest in peace that we also pray for them but rather that they may pray for vs that we may cleaue to their steppes These words proue not that they did in publike seruice call vpon the Martyrs with solemne praiers but onely interpret what Augustine supposed the meaning of the publike liturgie to be in that place where the Martyrs were named among other that are in rest for whome they did pray as appeareth more plainely by the other place which Bristowe quoteth De verb. Apost 17. Perfectio tamen c Yet there is some kinde of perfection in this life vnto which the holie Martyrs are come Therfore the Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faithfull doe knowe when the Martyrs are rehearsed in that place at the altar of God where praier is not made for them but for the rest of the departed that are rehearsed praier is made For it is an iniurie to pray for a Martyr by whose praiers we ought to be commended Note also in the former sentence that they praied for them that did rest in peace therefore they praied not for deliuerance out of purgatorie where they are saide to be in paine without rest The other places which he noteth of priuate persons praying to Saints proueth not that such praier was vsed in the publike seruice of the Church which although perhaps it were not syncere in all points yet was it much elder than the error of inuocation of Saintes Where I note that no sacrifice was to be offered vnto Martyrs Bristowe saith it is to be vnderstoode of externall sacrifice as though the Christians had any but eucharisticall or of prosperities But admitting his distinction of externall and internall sacrifice howe are the Gentiles answered by Saint Augustine that we worship not Saintes as Gods when we offer spirituall sacrifice to them which is most proper to God which is a spirit and challengeth the spirituall worship vnto him selfe You might as well graunt them externall temples as spirituall sacrifice and much rather For if they must haue spirituall and internall sacrifice they must haue a spirituall and internal temple wherein and vpon which it must be offered which is all one as if you will dispossesse the holy Ghost of his temple and set vp an other altar in mans heart to offer vp sacrifice vnto Martyrs therevpon But Bristowe as it were giuing ouer his former distinction saith praier to Saintes is no more a sacrifice to Saintes then those dishes of meate which of some Christians were superstitiously brought into the Churches as Augustine sheweth to be sanctified by the merites of the the Martyrs de ciuit lib. 8. cap 27. But the Prophet saith A troubled spirite which sendeth foorth praiers is a sacrifice vnto God Psal. 51. and therefore ought not to be offered to creatures and Psal. 140. he desireth that his praier may be as incense the euening sacrifice c. Concerning ceremonies he chargeth me to refuse al by mine argument of authoritie of Gods worde negatiuely and yet in other wordes to allowe some Who so will conferre the places shall easily see his witlesse and senselesse cauelling I refuse all superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies but the word of God alloweth such as are necessarie for order and decencie not hindering but furthering edification The order of seruice and ministration which Iustinus describeth the Church to haue vsed containeth a summe of all that we vse in our liturgie Bristowe saith it is the summe of the Masse also and there is water mingled with wine plaine against the Communion booke As for the mingling of water with wine howe proueth he that it is named as a necessarie ceremonie vsed in that time and not rather to declare how soberly the Christians vsed wine in those meetinges which were so malitiously slaundered But if it were a ceremonie what hath it contrarie to the communion booke which although it require no more then Christ vsed yet it forbiddeth not the addition of water if any necessarie occasion doe require it But I would faine see the masse disciphered out of that description of Iustine which Bristowe saith is the verie summe of the masse Vnlesse Fulke be so foolish to thinke saith he that the Bishoppes sermon the receiuing of all present the carying of it to them that be absent the rich mens offering may not to be omitted in any masse or for any cause What so euer may be vsed or omitted at any masse or for any cause I am not so wise that I knowe nor so carefull that I desyre to knowe But is Bristowe so madde to make any indued with reason to thinke that Iustinus
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
at the Emperors charges for the encrease of Christian faith among them Bristowe asketh me what Emperor or what faith but Catholike or Popish That which I saide of the Syrian Testament was to shewe that the Churches in Chaldea haue preserued the scriptures which yet are not subiect to the Church of Rome with the Emperors profession I delt not but his purpose I suppose was to encrease Christian faith and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not encrease Popish faith seeing Papists are so vnwilling that the people should read the worde of God in the natiue language Fourthly that I say the fathers alledging the succession of Bishops against heretikes specially named the Church of Rome because those heretikes for the most part had ben somtimes of the Church of Rome as Valentinus Marciō Nouatus Against this Bristowe telleth me that Allen speaketh also of the Arrians Donatists and al heretikes But I spake of those fathers that alledged the succession of Bishops namely Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion that they were at Rome vnder Hyginus Pius and Anicetus and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession and yet taught his heresie priuily and was excommunicated For Nouatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome Eusebius is cleare Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus whereas Nouatus had beene of Carthage but from thence was also gone to Rome I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greeke writers to be deceiued as Bristowe saith and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Nouatus and the other called Nouatus in steade of Nauatus which name was then in vse But seeing the person of the heretike is certaine it is folly to striue for his name I haue shewed mine authour for Nouatus 〈◊〉 Rome and so for the rest wherefore I haue not bewraied any ignorance therein as Bristowe pretendeth The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is where I shewe wherein the communion of Saintes consisteth In that I say one can not merit for an other no not for him selfe but euery man hath his worthinesse of Christe As though saith Bristowe neither Christ could merite for any other no nor for him selfe because he had his worthinesse of God But I say that Christ because he was God had his worthinesse of him selfe and therefore did merite for vs. And see what secret blasphemie is contained in this comparison of Bristowe Where he would make a similitude of meriting betweene vs which please not God but onely through his mercy with Christe who satisfied the iustice of God But Bristowe chargeth me so to define the cōmunion of Saints that I allow no place for the praiers of the members aliue made for others that are aliue A vile slander when I speake of the grace and giftes of God which as euery one hath receiued of God so of charitie he is bound to imploy the same to the profite of his fellowe members here on earth But if we be bound of charitie to pray one for an other saith Bristowe whie are not these members in heauen as well Because there is not a lawe appointed for them that are in heauen and them that be in earth we knowe praier is commaunded vs we knowe not any praier commaunded them neither are we to trust to any such thing But the Scripture saith that Christes friendes doe reioice in heauen with his penitents in earth It saith so in deede of the Angels and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirites but of their knowledge and if their knowledge were certaine yet it followeth not that they pray for the conuersion of sinners and much lesse that the mutuall offices of loue whereby one member hath compassion with an other can by any meanes touch the state of the deade to receiue any benefite thereby But an other quarrell is where I make the communion of the whole body to be the participation of life from Christ the head If this be all saith Bristow then there is no communion For what communion were it betweene the members of your naturall body if they did onely receiue life from your head and could not vse the saide life to profite one an other c. This man hath great leasure to trifle without any matter Who so shall reade my wordes Pur. 199. which he quoteth shall finde me to say That the communion of the whole body is the participation of life and all other offices of life that euery member and the whole body hath of the head as S. Paule teacheth plainely Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life for one member to assist an other in that it may and as it ought I haue comprehended it but that Bristowe doth wilfully holde my saying and then play with it at his pleasure Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen that he will haue other workes waies of saluation besides the bloud of Christ because he groundeth all works and waies of saluation in the bloud of Christ. But I reporting his words truly by plain distribution do gather that Allen will haue other workes and waies of saluation beside the bloud of Christ except you will say that is no way nor worke of saluation of it selfe without these waies and works of men If the bloud of Christ of it selfe be one way and worke of saluation and there be other waies and workes though grounded in it then are there more waies and workes of saluation than the onely redemption of Christe which I vnderstand by the bloud of Christ so I haue done Allen no iniurie but he hath offered hainous iniurie to the bloud of Christe and so doe al they which mixed it with any to purchase Gods fauour who is reconciled by none other merite or satisfaction but only by the bloud of the crosse of his Sonne our Lorde Iesus Christe to whome be praise for euer more In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion Bristowe doth only shew that there is in my two bookes stuffe ynough to make an other booke as bigge as this to the discredit of my partie I trust this booke of his as bigge as it is hath wrought no discredite to the cause I maintaine because I haue shewed howe it is stuffed with lies slaunders falsifications and cauillations such stuffe he may haue great store in the diuell his maisters schoole to make a booke tenne times as bigge as this was but for so much as he hath not aunswered any one of mine arguments or refelled any one of mine aunsweres to Allen in any right order leauing the defence of him as he pretendeth to defend the Church I confesse he hath left matter sufficient for any man that will vndertake the confutation of my bookes which this his vnorderly and vnsufficient replie notwithstanding I protest to remaine still in their strength and
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
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
earth in Ioan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible forme of bloud which was shedde on the crosse or the very substance of his bloud If thou say it was the very substance which thou must say except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee then it was the verie substance of his bloud which Augustine denyeth to be drunken in the Sacrament But Augustine saith Sander was so fully persuaded that the fleshe of Christ was to bee adored vnder the forme of bread after consecration that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it not as common flesh but as the flesh of God for whose sake we adore it Cùâ—â—d â—erram quamlibet c. when thou bowest thy self or fallest down before any earth looke not upon is as earth but looke vpon that holy one whose footstoole it is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Now saith Sander what is it to say before any earth doubtles before any host coÌ„secrated c. Doubtlesse this is a clearkly interpretation that quaeâ—ibet terra any earth or euery earth that a mâ—n doth bowe vnto is a consecrated host Not onely the flesh of Christe is earth to bee worshipped but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to bee worshipped in respect of whome Augustine saith cùm ad terram c. when thou bowest downe to any earth consider God and not man whome thou worshippest in that man euen as in worshipping the flesh of Christ wee stay not in his flesh but ascend vnto his spirite for thus his wordes runne Numquid autem caro viâ—ificat What doth the flesh giue life Our Lord himselfe hath said when he spake of the commending of the same earth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Ideo ad terram quaÌ„libeâ— cùm te incliâ—as c. Therefore also when thou bowest and castest downe thy selfe vnto any earth whatsoeuer behold it not as earth but that holy one whose footstoole that is which thou adorest for thou adorest for his sake Therefore here also he hath added worshippe his footstoole because it is holy c. The coniunction also which Sander hath craftily suppressed declareth that Augustine speaketh not onely of worshipping the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of God but also of worshippe giuen to any other earth which must wholy bee referred to God You see how inuincibly it is prooued that catholike men in S. Augustines time vsed to bowe down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar as San 〈…〉 no no more vntruely then ridiculously doth vaunt and 〈…〉 gge vpon the worshipping of any earth CAP. III. It is proued out of the Prophets that it can be no Idolatry to 〈…〉 ship the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar Sander first presupposeth the body and bloud of Christ 〈…〉 be really present in the Sacrament and then he defen 〈…〉 h it is no Idolatry to worshippe it But this is contra 〈…〉 to his promise for he vndertooke to prooue the reall 〈…〉 ence by the adoration that is dew to the Sacrament 〈…〉 d not the adoration by the reall presence But it is a â—onderful absurditie with him to say that it is Idolatry 〈◊〉 worshippe with godly honor the body and bloud of â—hrist in the Sacrament of the altar First because this say 〈…〉 g presupposeth externall Idols not to haue bene taken away by 〈…〉 e comming of Christ which is against the expresse worde of God If all externall Idols had bene taken away by the coming of Christ the Apostles would not so seriously haue warned men to beware of all Idolatry 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols act 15. 1. Iohn 5. c. Secondly it presupposeth saith he that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians by Publike doctrine and vniuersall practise in open Churches c. Not by true Christians but by false Christians the times of Antichrist as was prophecied Apo. â—3 9. Thirdly it presupposeth that Christ gaue occasion by his owne word that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread c. Christ gaue none occasion to worshippe bread more then to worship a dore or a vine tree Last of all it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping and also to teach that hee is Antichrist Nothing more agreeable to reason then that Antichrist should set vp an Idole that he himselfe by it might aspire to the greatest honor But Antichrist saith Sander is an aduersary and setteth himselfe against Christ but the Pope calleth himselfe the vicar of Christ and the seruant of seruantes Vnder the colour of these titles he arrogateth to himselfe power and honor aboue Christ to giue pardoÌ„ in papers sealed with lead a poena culpa when he teacheth that the pardon that Christ sealed with his bloud is only a culpa froÌ„ the fault but not from the punishment And yet the Popein his Canon lawe refuseth not to be called God aboue al Gods Secondly Antichrist aduaunceth himself aboue all that i◠〈…〉 shipped as God therfore he wil not how to an externall Id 〈…〉 commeth of superstition and pusillanimitie I answere 〈◊〉 Pope although he stoop not verie low to the sacramâ—â—â— of the Altar which is carried before him on a pal 〈…〉 when he himselfe is carried on mens sholders yet he pretendeth a familiar kinde of reuerence not of super 〈…〉 on but of subtiltie and fraude to couer his pride by hypocrisie that with deceit of vnrighteousnes he may preuaile in them that perish 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly Antichrist shall shew false signes and wonders to deceiue wicked men by So hath the Pope his members doâ— an infinite number wherof the Legends other lewâ—â— bookes are stuffed ful And euen Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of diuels Fourthly Antichrist is aduaunced aboue all idols th 〈…〉 shall set vp no idoll but himselfe therefore if the Pope set 〈◊〉 idol he is not antichrist I answere the Pope hath set vp 〈◊〉 idols but to aduaunce himself aboue them all For although he hath set vp the idolatrie of the Sacramens calling it god man yet what papist thinketh it not 〈◊〉 meritorious to worship kisle the Popes feete at Roâ—â— then to worship the sacrament daily in his owne pa 〈…〉 church What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa 〈…〉 of the Popes then in any thing that he loketh to receiue froÌ„ the sacrament of the altar wherfore this an hundred such like matters but that the Pope hath aduauced hims 〈…〉 aboue yâ— idols which he himself hath made coÌ„manded men to worship not for Christs honor but for his owne diuelish aduancement As for the profession of the Pope to worship Christ in the Sacrament in the signe of the crosse in praying to his saints by which Sandâ—r worlde discharge him froÌ„ antichristianitie is nothing elâ—â— but hypocrisie in him which hath no religion as it hath openly