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
that is the circum 〈…〉 ised the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith as Aâ—raham in both the states was iustified by faith without the workes of the law although as Iames sayth he was â—ustified before men by his oblation which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith and obedience Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done but according to his owne great mercie 〈…〉 e saved vs by baptisme Bristowe asketh if I marke the temps Yea very well he speaketh of workes before faith And doth it therefore followe that works done after faith doe iustifie Saint Paule extendeth the saluation which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth and renewing of the holy Ghoste which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour vnto eternall life therefore it followeth that beeing iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke which is the iustification of Saintes made white in the bloud of the lambe but with the filthy ragges of mannes righteousnesse Bristowe asketh where I learned to call the good workes done in the Church the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse Verily euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church All we are as an vncleane person and all our righteousnesse as filthy ragges For although God accept our workes that are done in faith and pardon their imperfection yet when they are obtruded vnto him to iustifie vs he abhorreth them as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes Apoc. 19. are good workes Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn 3. He that worketh iustice is iust where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man not of the cause No flesh is iust by workes of the law but by faith by which God maketh iust euen the vngodly man But how much better conference is it to know what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth which is the iustification of Saintes to compare it with other places of the same prophecie as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed howe the stoles of the faithful are made white with the bloud of the lambe and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ Ephe. 5. Touching freewill I saide we beleeue that man after his fall hath not free will no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the worde we are not sufficient but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apte to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptnes is of God To this Bristowe replyeth that naturall free will is not taken from vs nor naturall aptnes of will I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher and not like a flat Pelagian But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good which is none but bondage vnto euill except he be regenerate and then is his will framed of God in parte to good but not perfectly in this life as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies as for freedome opposite to coaction if Bristowe meane that by reteyning of free will I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint but not from seruilitie vnto sinne Whereof Saint complaineth Rom 7. Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e mainteined if Gods spirite haue any place that di 〈…〉 ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his owne will 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes which is 〈…〉 ery true but without working of Gods spirite our will 〈…〉 at h no aptnesse vnto any good thing Againe he saith 〈…〉 hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes that are freely gi 〈…〉 en and not of them that make a man acceptable as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts which are not freely giuen And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all working of Gods spirite euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ and not of speciall graces onely So that Bristowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose or matter 〈…〉 n question For I holde that we haue no aptenesse vnto 〈…〉 ny good of our owne freewill but onely of the grace of God Bristow saith I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent if we haue willes of our owne which I neuer 〈…〉 enied but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good before they be framed therto by Gods spirit is the thing 〈◊〉 denye About good workes in speciall namely prayer to Saintes 〈…〉 astinge merites Concerning inuocation of Saints I saide Purg. 451. wee call not vpon Saints because we beleeue not in theÌ„ for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee beleue not Rom. 10. To this reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place he saith first that Saint Paule did often inuocate call vppon the faithfull beseching them to pray for him which is a toye to mocke with an Ape for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte and could helpe his greefe but onely of charitie desireth their prayers Secondly he asketh where is any Scripture that we must beleeue in God onely Forsooth amongst many this shal suffice which is written in Ieremie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said the people beleeued God and Moses his seruant as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets and beleeuing in them which is to put our trust in them The like I saie to the seconde place quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people if they giue credite to Gods Prophets Credite Prophetis eius But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue belyke because of the preposition beth which is a miserable shift Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen to differ from the Latine and English phrase and especially from the sense of beleuing that is trusting in God which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature which is not God He quoteth also Philemon whose loue faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu and towards all his Saints where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ and loue to the Saints But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue he saith in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood Iohn 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ because he is
workes Marke also the reason why we are not saued by any workes done by man namely least any shoulde boast For boasting of man is not excluded so long as any workes that he doth may be the cause of his saluation For if Abraham be iustified by workes hee hath whereof to boast but not with God Rom. 4. where is then boasting It is excluded By what lawe of works No but by the lawe of faith Wherefore not onely the workes done before baptisme but all other are excluded from iustification that no man should boast as the Pharisee but that all glory of our saluation might be ascribed wholy to God by Iesus Christ. You therefore building saluation vpon good workes done after baptisme doe manifestly builde vpon another foundation then the onely true foundation Iesus Christ and therefore your errors notwithstanding you cannot as the olde fathers erring in small matters be yet the church of God What Flaccius Illyricus an intemperate man iudged of S. Hierom I haue not to aunswere for him CAP. VI. An aunswere first to all the foresaide errors wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first 600. yeares and afterwarde likeâ—ise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these lateâ— yeares Hetherto we had nothing in a manner but a rehersall of such matters as hee affirmeth to be confessed by me nowe he promiseth to proue that notwithstanding any thing I obiecte the Church hath neuer erred and moreouer that it can neuer erre How well he performeth his promise we shall see by considering his aunsweres and arguments Fulkes zeale in aunswering for Caluin and others being in deede of his Church First he chargeth me to holde that our Church at this present doth not erre and that I neuer say so much as plainely that it may erre In deede I am throughly perswaded that our Church in matters necessary to saluation doth not erre But when I say plainely that not onely euery particular Church but euen the whole Catholike Church on earth of euery age may erre in matters not necessarie to saluation what an impudent creature is this to affirme that I neuer say plainely that our Church may erre He that saith plainly euery man â—â— a lyer doth he not say plainely that both Fulke and Bristowe are lyers But my zeale for Caluin is wonderfull great in his opinion for I say he erreth not but the fathers and the whole Church haue erred A man were as good to reason with a poste as with such a sensles Papist I say Caluin erreth not in such pointes as hee is slaundered of by Allen therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and crie out as loude as I can euery man erreth and yet in Bristowes eares I say Caluin erreth not The like zeale I shewe for Maister Iewel whose learned labours I commende to the iudgement of the world And yet he hath quit himselfe so well saith Bristowe that the very reading of his aunswere hath turned many earnest Protestants into earnest Catholikes as both by the numbers and by the noblenesse of the persons is notoriously knowne I thinke the number and the nobilitie of the conuerts is all alike There runneth such a tale of Copley the great barron of Haie created by the Spanish I wot not howe Lorde of the Maze an auncient rotten house in Southwarke that he shoulde be so conuerted if some popish treason discouered caused him not to faine such a souden and straunge conuersion But yet Bristowe cannot abide that I should exhort English papists to reade that booke and pray to God for direction in the trueth No sir saith he that is not the way to trueth no more then to swallowe poyson and pray is the way to get or keepe health of bodie Alas poore Bristowe hast thou so soone forgot that which thou saidst immediatly before that Iewels booke is such a soueraigne antidote that hath expelled the poyson of Protestants from so many and so noble personages and made them so earnest Catholikes that thou nowe wouldest haue them fly from it as from a poyson We see thy wittie pollicie it is not the way to trueth thou sayest to reade our aunsweres but it is the way to continue meÌ„ in error to suffer them to see nothing but that you say your selues A sure way to winne credit but yet with fooles onely For hee that dare not let his aduersaries aunswere bee seene sheweth plainely that hee dare not abide the tryall but requireth all men to beleeue him vppon his bare worde Where you say I should rather exhort men to reade the auncient writers I aunswere that is needelesse for such whom I exhort to reade maister Iewels replie namely such as cannot wade well out of these controuersies without such conference as they may see betweene maister Harding and maister Iewell The first part concerning the errors that he layd ap 3. par 2. both to the fathers and to vs and first of the crosse and images First where I charge them that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentinians that the reader may wonder at my audacitie he saith Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure nor signe nor vse of the crosse but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones and in them two or 3. Christes and one of the Christs they called Crux c. what say you Bristowe speake they not a worde either of the figure signe or vse of the crosse I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus where he telleth that they call the Zodiak whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen an image of the crosse And when they both tell you that the crosse among the Valentinians had a double vse of confirmation and separation speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse No say you they inuented 30 gods called Aeones and among them diuerse Christs wherof the crosse was one It is a shame to lye on the diuell The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes but emissions of the first great inuisible infinite Acone Neither was the crosse any of those 30. Aeones ages or worldes For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus before he cometh to the crosse videlicet 8. of the first emission tenne of the seconde and twelue of the thirde Neither did they call the crosse Christ but the vertue of Christ confirmatiue separatiue such as healed the woman of the bloudie issue Vnto which they gaue diuerse names calling it in a manner as you papists doe the redeemer the sauior the sanctifier the apoynter of the bounds the bringer vnto further matters the most perfect ende or termination c. But all this while you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse but of a fained mysterie or imagination Then you must vnderstand that of these imagined mysteries they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in
called them to washing called them to baptisme so manye hundreth yeares before baptisme was instituted Is it not therefore euident that hee calleth them to repentaunce Or else hauing first so grieuously accused them of their present sinnes doeth he shewe no comfort but in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme which no man liuing could then possibly obteine in such manner as you meane no not the Prophet him selfe I might well say to you as you say to mee in another place In good sooth Dauus these things are not aptly diuided according to their times And that Christ Iohn 13. speaketh not of the ceremonie of baptisme it iâ— manifest by diuerse reasons but of his grace by which he washeth vs from all our sinnes And therefore be sayth to Peter except he were washed of him he coulde haue no part with him But neither Peter nor any other was or is baptised of him with water Iohn 4. therfore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptisme And where you adde that he which is so washed must neuerthelesse wash his feete that is say you his veniall sinnes which he committeth afterwarde although he continue withall in the cleannesse of baptisme before he be all cleane and aske mee what if he dye before he wash his feete Admitting that the feete should signifie none but veniall sinnes I aske you againe who shall wash his feete but he which washed Peters feet for the true text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath no neede but that his feete be washed Peter could not wash his owne feete in this figuratiue signification but except Christ did wash him he could haue no part with him But if we should take the feete onely for veniall sinnes and the generall washing for baptisme this inconuenience would follow of Christes wordes that he which is baptised and purged from veniall sinnes neede no purgation to clense him from mortall sinnes but is perfectly cleare The wordes of our sauiour are generall cannot admitt your exception of continuing in the cleannesse of baptisme therefore the feete signifie all sinnes to be pardoned after the first grace purging vs which is in deede represented and ratified in baptisme but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament and often times deuided For Iudas of whome you speake if he had dyed immediatly after he was baptised should not haue gone to heauen as one throughly washed or clensed by â—aptisme Where the Papists vrge the saying of Dauid Psal. â—1 Amplius laua me c. Wash me more from mine inâ—quitie Bristow saith I haue nothing to answeare but â—hat it was at Gods hand and by the meanes of Christes â—lood that he prayed to be clensed Purg. 97. 78. Whether I haue nothing else to say let the readers of â—hose places iudge But that which I here saye taketh aâ—ay Purgatorie and all satisfaction of mans merite alâ—hough Dauid as all the faithfull do pray that they may â—aily more and more feele the mercy of God and grace â—f Christes redemption to the full satisfying of their â—onscience and perfect assurance of faith and hope of eâ—ernall life which though it receiue daily increases yet â—he vertue of Christes death in which God is reconciled â—nto vs is alwayes one and the same Where I charge Allen that the sufficiencie of Christs â—assion is counted a light argument vnto him Bristow â—aith it is too light in deede to beare downe any doctrin â—f Christ. But when or out of what scripture shal wee â—eare the doctrine of Christ for mens merites satisfaâ—tions propitiatorie or purgatorie it selfe Where I denye that our workes are any parte of saâ—isfaction for our sinnes of which the price is throughâ—y payed in the passion of Christ Bristow obiecteth the â—aying of the Apostle Phil. 2. Worke your owne saluation and yet it is God that worketh in you As though there were no working of our saluation but by satisfaction for our sinnes Wee worke our saluation when we walke in the way that God hath called vs to passe through vnto the free gift of eternall life namely in faith obedience thankfulnes c. which are so farre from merite that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to perfourme any good thing according to his good pleasure Phil. 2. And therefore wee neede not the schoole distinction of causes for the satisfaction of our sinnes by our workes which is onely the effect of Christes death and passion needing no helpe of our workes which worde Bristowe sayth mine ignorance so much abhorreth and yet the scripture often sayth that God helpeth both Christ Ps. 17. vs. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christs helpeth vs Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture that our workes helpe the passion of Christ I abhorre not the worde of helping when it is vsed in that sense that God and Christ should helpe vs or God helpe Christ in respect of his humanitie but that man by merite should helpe God Christ in the worke of our redemption satisfaction for our sinnes or purging of them I abhoâ—â—e with all my heart yea I spit at it and tread it vnder my feete But if the mercie of God saith Bristowe although iâ— be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christs passion nor the working of it or merites of that man how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christs passioÌ„ enforte you to exclude either his baptisme his good workes in his members or also the working of his baptisme and the working or efficacie of those good works especially seeing the scripture is plaine for all Bristow vnderstandeth not how the mercie of God is omnisufficient which is not as eâ—ery one will imagine but as it may stande with his iustice which is not otherwise satisfied but in the passion of Christ which being thereby fully satisfied we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth but that which not onely the scripture denyeth but nature it selfe abhorreth that contradictories should be both true Namely the iustice of God is fully satisfied by the onely suffering of Christ And the iustice of god is not satisfied by the onely sufferings of Christ but by other meanes also as by our own workes or suffrings or other mens for vs. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristowe citeth proue this later part of the contradiction to be true First where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration The text is when the louing kindnesse gentlenes of God our sauiour appeared not of the works of righteousnes which we wrought but according to his owne mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and the receiuing of the holy ghost which he hath powred foorth plentifully vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour that being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternal life Here it is manifest we are so â—aued by baptisme that we are iustified by his grace ther â—ore not by the merite of baptisme or satisfactioÌ„
saued the goe in peace But also in many places of the Gospell we reade that our Sauiour vsed this speache that he saith the faith of the beleeuer is the cause of his saluation By all which it is cleare that the Apostle iudgeth rightly that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe See you not that iustification is not only to sett a man in free will discharged of his sinnes committed before baptisme but continueth with him vnto saluation Also where I saide that Origen answereth this obiection which the Papists make against vs for teaching iustification by faith only though Bristowe say it is false it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis c. but peraduenture some body hearing this may become idle and negligent in doing good workes if only faith suffice to iustification Is not this one of the Papists obiections Againe that this doctrine of iustification perteineth only to them that are newly conuerted to Christianity against which Origen sheweth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himselfe that he was righteous and boasting thereof Luk 18. that it perteyneth to all men that boasting may be excluded and that none boast in any thing but in the crosse of Christ Vides Apostol 〈…〉 non gloriantem c. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousnes nor of his chastity nor of his wisdome nor of his other vertues and acts but most manifestly pronouncing and saying let him that gloryeth glory in the Lorde c. and so at length sheweth that all this doth verifie the saying of the Apostle we iudge that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law which before he had interpreted by faith only whether they haue no works going before as the theefe the sinfull woman or whether they haue workes of the lawe without the faith of Christe as the Pharisee or whether they haue neuer so many workes and vertues with the faith of Christe as the Apostle Paule there is but one way of iustification for all men which is by remission of sinnes through faith onely Where Cyprian saith that faith onely profiteth Ad Quirin Cap. 42. Bristowe saith he meaneth that faith profiteth and without faith nothing profiteth I confesse in deede he meaneth all that Bristowe saith and more too namely that faith profiteth therefore workes do not profite vnto iustification as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth to proue his saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for iustice Gen. 15. By which Saint Paule proueth that Abraham was iustified by faith without workes and yet Abraham was not voyde of good workes Out of the Booke De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying That he beleeueth not in God at all which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only To this Bristowe answereth without shame that the Booke De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition coyned by Erasmus as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an vtter enemy to all forgery and supposition would himselfe counterfet a booke vnder the name of Cyprian But Bristowe doubting least he may be conuicted by auncient copies of this booke remaining in Libraries as no doubt but that he may for a second aunswer saith That this sentence is of it selfe Catholike inough For to trust Gods giftes as in the Catholike faith and good workes that he worketh in vs also to trust in Saints to trust in these I say as they be his is to trust in him onely I say sayeth Bristowe what neede we further witnesse or reason But Christe telling a parable against them that trusted in themselues that they were righteous telleth of a Pharisee that trusted in his woorkes as they were the giftes of GOD to whome hee gaue thankes for them Luke 18. This auctority of Bristowe is inough to discharge Pelagius Celestinus and all the rable of freewill men who trusted in nothing but that was the gift of God and so acknowledged by them in so much as they confessed that a man was iustified by the grace of God when he was iustified by his owne workes because God gaue free will and power to worke well also a law by keeping whereof men might be righteous Finally this rule of Bristowe will iustifie a man which putting his trust in Angels worshippeth them as Gods Angells yea which putting his trust in any of Gods creatures trusteth in him alone So that nothing is so singular but he can make it generall nor any thing so generall but he can restrayne it at his pleasure Now that Ambrose also extendeth the grace of iustification by faith only vnto eternal saluation it is manifest as generally throughout his commentarie vppon the Epistle to the Romanes so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. vpon these wordes of the Apostle I thank my God alwaies for you for the grace of God which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesu. Datam dicit c. He saith this grace which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesus which grace is so giuen in Christ Iesus because this is decreed of God that he which beleueth in Christ should be saued without workes obtaining freely remission of sinnes by faith only Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicatione c. that from the preaching of Iohn the lawe doth cease that only faith may suffice vnto saluation which is an abridgment of the law Likewise Exhortatione ad virgines Videtis mysteria c. you see the mysteries you see the grace of Christ the grace of the holy Ghost which is deliuered as it were by a certaine lot because not of workes but of faith euery one is iustified of the Lorde For as the falling out of the lott is not in our power but is such as chaunce hath brought so the grace of our Lorde is not as it were of the merite of hire but is deliuered as of his will This writeth Ambrose of al that are partakers of the grace of God and not of them that are newly baptised or conuerted only Againe in the same Booke he saith speaking of all men that attaine to saluation Hîc quidem luctamur sed alibi coronamur c. here truly we do wrestle but in an other place we are crowned I haue spoken not of my selfe only but of all men generally For whence should I haue so much merite to whom pardon is in steed of a crown What can be said more plainly to exclude the merite of good workes from iustification whereas the reward of good workes that is freely giuen to the iustified man by faith only both Ambrose and we doe neuerthelesse acknowledge 3. About Purgatorye Touching Scriptures expounded against it He sayeth I am taken in a vaine bragge because I beeing vrged by Allen to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead I bring only Hierom referring the reader to other places of Cyprian and Origen
the canonical scriptures as a Councell prouinciall Bristowe sayth it was by my confession confirmed in the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople in Trullo therfore it hath the authoritie of the whole true church But I tooke no exception to the generalitie therof But let it be as generall as you will both that and the Councel in Trullo erred by your owne iudgement seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authoritie of the Romane prelate euen by name as Gratian witnesseth Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretike Art 16. 17. Beside this I alledge that this Councel of Carthage 3. among Canonicall Scriptures nameth fiue bookes of Salomon whereas the church alloweth but three Bristowe answereth out of Augustine which hee saith was one of the Councell that the booke of wisedome and Ecclesiasticus of a certeine similitude were called Salomons bookes whereas they were written by Iesus the sonn of Syrach although the former he retract in rest li. 2. Ca. 4. I aske no better to proue the errour of the Councell but that they named fiue of Salomon for three Secondly it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Councell that although they called these books canonical yet they meant them not to be of equall authoritie with the rest of the scriptures Aug. cōtra Gaudent lib. 2. Ca. 23. And this scripture of the Machabees the Iewes count not as the Lawe the Prophets the Psalmes to whome our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses saying it behoueth that all things should be fulfilled that are writtē of me in the law in that Prophets in the Psalms But it is receiued of the church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read heard Bristowe saith I ascribe vnto S. Augustine that which he reporteth of the Iewes when I say that he alloweth them not in full authoritie with the law the Prophets the Psalmes fraudulently omitting that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentēce that our Sauiour Christ appealeth to these onely witnesses namely the law the Prophets the Psalmes so the Iewes by ancient tradition diuide all the canonical bookes into these three orders Secondly where I note that Augustine alloweth not these bookes wtout condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Brist saith that all Catholikes S. Peter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole scriptures as S. Augustine doth in the Donatistes which defended the murthering of thēselues by example of Rasis out of the Machabees Wherunto I reply that although sobrietie be required in al readers of the holy scripture other writings also yet it is not required as a condition making the scriptures to be profitably receiued of the church if they be soberly read for howsoeuer the canonicall scriptures be read by whomsoeuer although he be mad drunk that readeth or heareth them yet are they not only profitably but also necessarily receiued of the church but this scripture of the Machabes saith Augustin it is receiued not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard Who seeth not a gret difference between this scripture receiued vnder condition the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him selfe But Augustine saith Brist the Councel call these canonical de doct Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine nameth al that by any church are counted canonical confessing in a maner as Bristow granteth that they were not all generally receiued of the whole church therfore instructeth the studēt of diuinitie to prefer some before others The reasons that I brought to proue this booke not to be canonical are these first because the author cōmendeth Rasis for killing himself which is contrary to Gods commaundment Bristow answereth out of Augustine that the scripture hath only told it not cōmended it But the place is manifest 2. Mach. 14. that the author of the booke doth not only report his murthering of him self but also doth highly cōmend his manfulnes therin willing saith he rather to dye valiantly than to giue him selfe into the hands of wicked men to suffer reproch vnworthie for his noble stock so forth to the ende of the Chapter Secondly I said that writer abridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other mens writings Bristowe sayth the booke of Kings in many places abridgeth stories telling where they be written in other bookes that are not canonicall To this I answere the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirite of man but for ciuile affaires sendeth the reader to other writers seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them Furthermore he sayeth S. Marke is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthewe I aunswere not so cōmonly as falsly for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Mathewe and something he vtterly omitteth which is not the office of a true abridger And albeit that he did it were no answere to mine obiection that because the spirite of God telleth shortly that which he himself had told at large as in the Actes the sermons of the Apostles he is an abridger of Chronicles written by prophane men The citing of the saying of Poets Act. 17. Tit. 1. proueth not that the holy ghost intending to write an historie of the church vseth the labour of the prophane man Iason the Cyrenian I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their owne receiued witnesses another thing to bring fiue bookes of an historie into one Thirdly I sayd the author of that booke confesseth that he toke that matter in hand that men might haue pleasure in it which could not away with the long tedious stories of Iason But the spirit of God serueth not such vaine delightes of men Brist asketh if profitable breuitie be a vaine delight but I speake not of the breuitie but the cause why he affected breuitie namely that men might haue pleasure in his worke Fourthly I said the author sheweth what labor sweat it was to him to make this abridgement ambitiously cōmendeth his trauell sheweth the difference between a storie at large an abridgement all which things sauour nothing of Gods spirit Also he confesseth his infirmitie and desireth pardon if he haue spoken slenderly and barely whereby hee testifieth sufficiently that he was no scribe of the holy ghost Bristow saith that he ambitiously commendeth his trauel is but my blasphemy all the rest standeth well ynough with the assistance of the holy ghost Concerning his ambitious cōmendation of his trauel where to serueth his great cōplaint of the great labour sweat watching the it cost him the wise similitude that he taketh of him that maketh a feast seeketh other mens commoditie hath no smal sauor so we also for many mens sake saith he are very well content to vndertake this great labour A great labour I promise you
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
be with the armes of faith then with the lippes of the body who can not touch the wisedome of God But Sander once againe to make his matter good repeateth his ranke and rotten distinction of two giftes two giuers two manners of eating true meate and meate truely affirming meate truely to bee because it is receiued in at the mouth and goeth into the bodie after such sort as other meates doe although it nourish spiritually Where there is no effect of that he calleth meate truely but it is by plaine wordes of the Chapter ascribed to that which is called true meat which he consesseth may be receiued onely spiritually euen the vertue of raising vp our bodies for which cause hee woulde make the bodily eating to be necessarie He that beleeueth in mee hath life eternall and I will raise him vp againe in the last day Afterwarde he citeth Hilarie who presseth the word verè against the Arrians But yet Sander translateth him falsely For to make it seeme that Hilarie spake of such bodily eating as hee doeth he turneth these words Haec accepta atque hausta efficiunt these thinges taken and swallowed whereas he should say these things that is the flesh and bloud of Christ being taken and drunken do cause this that both Christ is in vs and wee in him which must needes be taken for eating and drinking spiritually For eating drinking his flesh corporally Sander confesseth to haue no such effect Howe Christ tarieth in vs naturally and how we truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie I haue spoken before and these places of Hilarie are discussed more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins lib. 2. Cap. 20. 2â— by which it may appeare that Hilary taught no corporall maner of receiuing but sub sacramento carnis communicandae vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated verè sub mysterio truly vnder a mysterie and so as therebie Christ of necessitie dwelleth in vs and wee in him The last auctor is Gregory Nyssenus in vita Mosis Puro defaecatóque animo coelestem cibum sumere c. To take the heauenly meate with a pure and cleane minde The which meate sayth he no sowing brought forth vnto vs by the art of tilling the grounde But it is breade prouided for vs without seede without sowing without any other worke of man It flowing from aboue is founde in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely ment by this Historie of Manna is not a thing without a bodie For by what meanes can a thing without a body be made meate vnto the body The thing which is not without a body is by all meanes a bodie Here saith Sander Nyssenus proueth the truth of Christes body by the truth of the eating thereof which must be really taken into our bodies by our mouthes or else Nyssenus faileth in his whole discourse which is a shamelesse manifestly For Gregory saith expressely we muste take that heauenlie meat with a pure and cleane minde of taking it into our bodies by the mouth he speaketh not He gathereth that Christes body is a true body not because it is bodily eaten but because it is meate vnto our bodies which yet as spiritual meate nourisheth spiritually as Sander confessed euen nowe How strong the argumenâ— of Nyssenus is I force not but he neither affirmeth neither any thing can rightly bee gathered out of him which we doe not confesse and acknowledge in as ample maner as he That Christ hath a true body and that his flesh is heauenlie meate indeede to nourish the whole man which must be receiued with a pure and cleane minde not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed downe our throates CAP. XVI By the manner of our tarying in Christ it is proued that wee receiue his reall flesh into our bodies The tarying of Christ in vs and wee in him Chry 〈…〉 sostome in Ioan. H. 46. calleth a mingling with him which Cyril declareth by a similitude of powring waâ—â— vpon melted waxe in Ioan. lib. 4. Ca. 16 and of a litle leaue 〈…〉 which tempereth the whole lump of dowe so a litle of the blessing draweth the whole man into it selfe and filleth vs with h 〈…〉 grace and so doeth Christ dwell in vs we in him By a litle of that blessing Cyril meaneth a smal portion of the sacramentall bread or that which semeth bread as Sander will haue it And by these interpretations saith he it cannot be auoided but that the heauenly food which we receiue into our mouthes is the reall substance of Christs flesh For it is called benedictio the blessing which worde is not meant of an inward vertue comming from heauen but of that which seemeth bread and is visibly receiued To all this I answere first that the termes of mingling and similitudes of powring waxe of leauen must haue a spirituall vnderstanding or else they will breede monstrous absurdities And vnto the termâ— blessing I say it is taken for the externall Sacrament euen as the bodie of Christ the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ. c. by the figure synecdoche of the most principall parte of the Sacrament not in respect of that which seemeth breade and is visibly receiued but of the spirituall blessing whereof they are partakers which receiue the Sacrament worthily Therefore saith Cyrill a litle blessing draweth vs into it and filleth vs with his grace and so Christ tarieth in vs and we in him I aske howe but by his grace For Sander wil confesse that which seemeth bread to tarie but a little while in vs likewise that the bodie of Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the kindes or shewes of bread and wine tarie in vs Where fore the tarying of Christ by grace in vs proueth not his reall receiuing of Christs flesh into our bodies Yea Sander saith himself A litle of that blessed foode being receiued worthily of vs is not so properly said to tarie in vs as we to tariâ— in it for that though it be small in forme yet in vertue it is great I pray thee Sander tell vs what is that blessed food thou speakest of which doeth not properly tarie in vs For of his flesh Christ saith that it is meate in deede that hee tarieth in him which eateth it And what is that which is smal in forme the bodie of Christ or the external sacrament which thou callest the shewes of bread and wine which in deede are small in forme The bodie of Christ I suppose thou art not so mad to contract into smaller quantitie then it is and as for the accidents or shewes of bread and wine what vertue is in them And in deede that onely worde of Cyrill A litle of the blessing meaning thereby the externall Sacrament for the internall vertue thereof ouerthroweth Popish transubstantiation carnall manner of receiuing into the mouth For by a little of the blessing
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale