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„
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
meate which abideth vnto eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once set downe which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth as to the meate which taryeth but being applyed to the meate which perisheth it cannot be turned Worke not the meare which perisheth as stuffe that is present but Labor not or seeke not for it as you doe which is absent therefore it must be so turned as it may serue for both And where as Sander saith that this meat is not laboured for because it is not sought out by our diligence but giuen by Christ it is a fonder reason except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges because all good thinges are the giftes of God Finally that you may see what a singular quarrelling vaine glorious person he is to seeke a knot in a rush you shal vnderstande that the papistes themselues translate this place euen as the great bible doeth namely Heskins as well learned a Papist as Sander lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified is ver 57. of the same chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The true English is He that eateth me he shal also liue for me The english bible readeth he that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me The best colour of his cauil is that propter patrem is translated in the same ver For the father Howbeit seing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter signifieth the efficient cause there is no fraude in turning it By the meanes of me which is the same that is meant by For me and as I thinke was so turned by the translators to shewe that For the father includeth not the finall cause as it might seeme but the eternall efficient cause of life As for the cauillation that a man may liue by meanes of him which is absent is altogether childish and ridiculous for who can vnderstande him to be absent which is eaten The controuersie is not of the presence but of the maner of the presence But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ He that eateth me shall liue by me or for me when they affirme that wicked men eate him which liue not by him for this is generally true of all that eate him and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily For the Sacrament in deede may be eaten vnworthily but Christ himselfe is not eaten but where he giueth life The 3. corruption obserued by Sander is vers 58. of Iohn 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth english it He that eateth of this bread The adding of this word Of may be the Printers fault for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying he that eateth of this breade vsed by Christ before verse 51. heere can bee no corruption or falsification prooued As for the distinction which Sander maketh betweene eating Christ and eating of Christ eating his flesh and eating of his flesh is friuolus and vaine for none eate of him but they which eate him Yes saith he Of him we may eate without the Sacrament but him selfe wee properly eate onely vnder the forme of breade Howe vntrue this is you may see by this argument None can haue eternall life except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloode But manie haue eternall life which eate not the Sacrament Therefore manie eate Christ and the fleshe of Christ which eate not the Sacrament Ioan. 6. ver 53. 57. The 4. falsification is in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm accepisset Iesus panem gratias egisset fregit dedit discipulis ait The true English is Iesus hauing taken breade and giuen thankes or blessed brake and gaue to the disciples and saide The common Bible readeth Iesus tooke breade and when he had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue i◠to the disciples The holy scripture saieth not that Iesus brake it neither that hee gaue it but that hee brake and gaue Againe in saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul fiue times putting the particle it which is neither in the Greeke nor in the Latine Bible Who woulde thinke that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly What say you Sander is not the particle it added neither in Greeke nor Latine When the accusatiue case is once set downe and then followe transitiue verbes is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue to adde the particle it You say he brake and gaue but not brake it nor gaue it Will you teach vs a newe Grammer that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues lest the wilde Irish boyes that goe to the Grammer schoole should hisse at you as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you and aske you what hee brake and what hee gaue If hee brake not and gaue not it which hee tooke If you say hee brake his bodie and not the breade because you say he so gaue his bodie that hee gaue no breade aduise your selfe howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body which was but once broken for vs on the crosse but yet not broken into seuerall peeces as that thing whatsoeuer you will call it was broken which hee gaue to his disciples And this vndoubtedly you meane when you say The wordes of saint Matthew doe not all stande in order in so much as Christ said the wordes of consecration before hee brake the sacrament or gaue to his disciples And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering the words Verily saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth And if all these Euangelists and Apostles doe set the words out of order whence come you that will take vpon you to set thē in order Haue you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order And if you had haue you forgotten what you did write euen nowe in the preface that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them But standing of the wordes out of order and that in euerie one that rehearseth them must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie yea this standing or not standing out of order may decide a great parte of the controuersie for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue then he brake and gaue breade And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes and saint Paul fauour this opinion you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses which had a care to place
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
argumentes with that impudent slaunder of all the church of God which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it within these 300. yeres I passe ouer come to the matter in question I said Purg. 57. against Allen mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell it is to be proued with manifest arguments autorities out of holy scriptures Although they were not nor yet are in perfect blessednes God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs shuld not be made perfect Heb. 11. But by this text saith Brist S. Paul doth meane that their soules were not yet admitted into heauen How proueth he that forsooth the old testament did consummate nothing c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted Christ died c. A sore bolt as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen but by the new testament or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith Heb 9. That the way of the saints was not yet opened while the first tabernacle stood Bristow addeth to the text of his own into soncta or heauen wher the apostle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death resurrection ascension the effect wherof neuertheles was extended no lesse to the fathers of that olde testament then to vs. Thirdly the apostle saith Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place by the bloud of Iesus which hath dedicated that new liuing way for vs through the vayle that is his flesh All which proueth nothing but that there is no entrance into heauen but by Christ which way is comon to all the saintes of God of all ages But Bristow biddeth me conferre the end of my text Heb. 11. with the beginning where he saith they receiued not the promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating I admit it for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies The consummation of which promise perfection of the saints God reserueth vnto one time when we shal all receiue the promise consummation together that they without vs saith he shoulde not be consummate the same reason is of the apostles fathers of the primitiue church vs of the later church them that shal be to the end of the world Now to mine arguments autorities of scripture I reason that seeing they all beleeued in Christ they had euerlasting life entred not into condemnation but passed frō death to life Ioh. 5. To what life saith Bristow but the life or resurrection of their bodies for vntil the last day all the dead are in death O prodigious heretike call you that a passage frō death to life to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years Is God then to this new Saducee the god of the dead not of the liuing yea he saith that life after corporal deth in the new testament lightly euery where signifieth the resurrection of the bodies What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world which shal be interrupted with so long abyding in death 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith he that beleueth in me hath alreadie eternal life if they that are passed out of this world are all in death wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie Limbus patrum or death The second argument is of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike Apoc. 13. To this the beast hath nothing to answere but that it is not said that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world but that all the reprobates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh And because Apoc. 17. the words be whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world by a monstrous construction contrary to the manifest composition and pointing both in the Greeke vulgare Latine to be referred not to the lamb slaine but to the booke of life As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world which is no where else written in the scripture but heere the cause of the trueth he will not haue to be my fonde sense but because his death was preordeined of God and prefigured so long before A substantiall cause by which we may say that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world because his death was so long before ordeined of God and prefigured in the death of Adam The third argument is that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life sayeth that there is peace and that they shall rest in their beddes Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon or hell is prepared of olde for the wicked To this he answereth that Esay speaketh not of his owne time but as a Prophet of the time now since the cōming of Christ who is our peace as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures And what a shamelesse answere is this to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet After a little quarreling against my translatiō the sense wherof he cannot deny he asketh if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine But sir Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe will not onely giue them rest without sense of paine but peace with happinesse and prosperitie Finally he sayeth Topheth or Gehenna was not the onely hell because our Creede and the Scripture sayeth that Christes soule was in hell I answere that hell signifyeth either the place or state of torments for sinnes in the former Caluine whome you slaunder sayth not that Christ was in but in the later when he complained that he was forsaken of God there is not therefore proued by Christes discending into hell any other place or receptacle of soules in hell but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned The fourth argument against Limbus is that Lazarus was carryed by Angels not downe to hell but vp to Abrahams bosome But the riche man being in hell looked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of Bristowe asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to
olde Fathers in their Apologies declare whatsoeuer was done in their assemblies As for oblations for the dead that Tertullian speaketh of cannot be proued to haue beene vsed at the communion but rather at the buriall of the dead But Arnobius saith Bristow about the very same time as a witnes to the contrarie complayning that the connenticle houses of the Christians were pulled downe by the Paganes in which God is prayed vnto peace pardon is asked for al men for the Magistrates for friends for enemies for the liuing and for the dead Such a saying there is in Arnobius Lib. 4. Con. gra I confesse but how proueth Bristowe that he was about the time of Iustinus or Tertullian when he confesseth it was 300 yeares since Christians were named Lib. 1 and vnder Dioclesian he florished saieth Hierome which was sixe or seuen score yeres after Tertullian the later of the two who florished vnder Seuerus The olde liturgie of the Greeke Church in Epiphanius time had a memorie of the dead but seeing it was an oblation for the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles c. in the first institution thereof it could be but an offering of thankes giuing although Epiphanius expounded it after the errour of this time to be a prayer for the sinner a separation of Christ from the order of men This is the effect of that I saide Bristowe saith I am deceiued by thinking it is but one memorie whereof Epiphanius speaketh and sendeth me to the countefeit liturgies of Saint Iames Chrysostome and Basil which were written long after their age according as well to the error of the time in which they were writtē as in some expressing the name of the Emperour and Bishop in whose time they were written Also he sendeth me to diuers places of S. Augustine but which I knowe not for the place Encherid C. 110. Dulci q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed which he saith for the very good are thankesgiuing for them that were not very ill asking of mercie for the verie ill no helpe but a comfort of the liuing Chrysostome also speaketh of a generall memorie of all that were departed instituted by the Apostles Ad Philip. hom 3. in which if there had bene an expresse forme of prayer for the dead he needed not of that memorie to haue proued prayer to be profitable to the dead The place of Origen he mangleth euen as his Maister Allen doth but he more vsually suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together without preiudice of his interlacing In Iob lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth louing but one life and not hoping for any other after this But now doe we not celebrate the day of natiuitie seeing it is the entrance of sorowes tēptations but we celebrate the day of death as that which is the putting away of al sorowes the escaping of al tēptations We celebrate the day of death because they doe not die that seeme to die Therfore also do we make memories of the Saints deuoutly kepe the memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith as much reioycing in their rest as desiring also for our selues a godly finishing in faith So therfore we do not celebrate the day of natiuitie because they which die shall liue perpetually And thus we celebrate it calling together the deuoute men with the Priestes the faithfull with the Cleargie inuiting also the needie and poore filling the fatherlesse and widowes with foode that our festiuitie may be done in remembrance of the rest which is vnto the soules departed whose memorie we celebrate and may be made of vs a sauour of sweetenesse in the sight of the eternal God First concerning my translation Bristowe will haue Religiosos to signifie Monkes as though none were deuout but they or as though the Church in Origens time were so full of Monkes as it was afterward Secondly he saith that death is a putting away of the sorowes of this life only where Origen saith of all and it were small cause of reioysing to put off the small sorrowes of this life if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatorie Againe the rest of the dead he will haue to be onely of their bodies That were a poore refrigerium if their soules should frie in Purgatorie The sauour of sweetenesse he wil not haue to be a sacrifice of thankesgiuing but a worke meritorious as though it was a worke meritorious that Noe offered cleane beastes after the floode when the text saith the Lorde smelled a sweete sauour Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thankesgiuing for his deliueraunce The like ignorance he saith I shewe to thinke that memorie for one cannot be a prayer for him As S. Paule to the Colloss Remember my giues and to the Hebrues Remember them that are in giues c. But where did I say so ignorantly that prayer may not be ioyned with remembrance For I trust Bristow is not so brutish to say that all memorie is a prayer But how skilfull is he to compare the memorie of imprisonment which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned with the memorie of rest which beeing obteined what should we pray for As for the wordes in S. Iames his Masse which was written by some Sir Iames many hundreth yeares after Origens death I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude vnto them Where Cyprian saith that Victor deserued not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests I shewed by diuerse good reasons that he meaneth not of prayer for him but such as was of thankesgiuing for the dead and for the like godly departure of the faithfull liuing For his offence in making a Clarke executor was not to be punished with eternall torments wherto Bristow answereth by telling of three things done in their Masse which he saith were done in Cyprians time but that is the matter in controuersie my reasons alledged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Councells at once the Councell of Carthage the 4 Cap. 95. the Councell of Vase which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the deade which they had bequeathed to the vse of the poore Allen saith to excommunicate them that hinder the oblations for the deade Now commeth Bristowe and saith it is but meere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the deade oblations for the deade because Cyprian saith there should be no offering for Victor I haue shewed Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thankesgiuing and this discipline was not to cutt him from the Church but an admonition to other As for the other Councells of Toledo 11. Bracharense with this of Carthage and Vase I haue answered Pur. 426. against which Bristowe here saith nothing but repeateth them with his vsuall interlardings The Councell Bracharense which I twise promised to shewe
is cloathed and when he is naked when he is shauen and when he was bearded when he is sicke and when he is whole Such are the manners in which you houlde that the sacrifice of the masse is the same after another manner The 13. is where I attribute to diuorsement which the scripture in many places doth deny to diuorsement and doth attribute onely to death What is it to make her no wife that was a wife Verily diuorsement for adulterie maketh her no wife that was a wife as is gathered euen by those textes of scriptures which Bristowe quoteth Matt. 5. 19. Mark 10. c. where the exception of fornication maketh the case to be the same that was vsed by permission of the lawe in diuorsementes and mariage after diuorsementes But Bristowe saith I vtter herein my skil in many thinges As in saying that mariage after diuorsements is dispensed with all by the Pope And doe I not say true although the Popes law denyeth such mariage to be lawfull Are there not many examples of such dispensations Secondly I say that the Popes canon lawe hath farre many more causes of diuorsement then for adulterie Bristow distinguisheth the perpetuall diuorse for adulterie where the innocent partie cannot be compelled to receiue the guiltie partie although he become neuer so chast and separation where the furie of a man is so great that the wife is in danger of her life asking if we doe not allow her to dwell away from him vntill he be amended No verily but we would compell him to lie in prison from her vntill his amendement might sufficiently appeare But what saith your lawe concerning frigiditie concerning error in the condition of the person as if she marie a man which is bond whō she supposed to haue beene free c. Doth not your lawe allow diuorsements perpetuall in such cases But where I wish that adulterers might be punished with death first he quarelleth as though I held that the Iudiciall lawe were stil to be obserued as though it be not free in such poyntes as it is conuenient for other common welthes to receiue it albeit it is not necessarie Secondly he houldeth that a man was not punished by death if he sinned against his wife with a single woman Where as the case is expresly of a single man lying with another ' mans wife or of one that was betroathed to another man which must needes be all one of a maried man lying with a single woman Leuit. 20. and Deut. 22. And yet he noteth mine ignorance of the lawe because I charge the Papistes to allow dispensation for such persons to marie as the lawe of God and nature abhorreth Then he asketh me what lawe of God do I meane but Leu. 18 and whether I thinke that law to binde Christians Yea verily for the sense of nature abhorreth all those forbidden coniunctions What else moued the heathen Romanes to make lawes euen of the same But Bristow bringeth in Gods dispensation in the old Testament which is false for after the propagation of mankinde for which it was of necessitie allowed it can neuer be proued that God allowed any one of those mariages forbidden 18. But the Pope dispenseth not onely with marying of the brothers wife in affinitie but euen with the Vncle to marie his Neece in consanguinitie as we see in the mariage of King Philippe of Spaine in our daies The 14. after such ignorance in Gods lawe discouered Bristow marueileth not if I be ignorant in the Popishe Churches lawe and diuinitie in making it a certaine thing that the Pope giueth his pardons by the sacrament of penance Athough it be no great shame for me to professe mine ignorance in many of the popes lawes some part of his diuinitie yet herein Bristow doth me wrong to charge me to say absolutely that the Pope giueth his pardons by the sacramēt of penance As though the Pope being at Rome might minister a sacrament to one in England And that so great a D. doth not trowe that the power of binding and loosing is exercised many other wayes besides that sacrament Seeing the Master of the sentences cōprehendeth vnder the title of the sacrament of penance al that power or what soeuer he can enquire or define of it Lib. 4. Dist. 14. 15. 16. 17. But if sins may be forgiuē in popery without repentance that the Popes pardons require no repentāce in them that should take the benifite of them it is one poynt of poperie that I am content to confesse that I haue learned of Bristow The 15. poynt is that I am ignorant in our own diuinity because I wonder that a Papist should say that God sometime punisheth sinne with sinne and complaine that when we say but halfe somuch they chardge vs to make God the auctor of sinne For Bristowe asketh if it be not a cōmon position large discourses vpō it in our masters bookes that God is the author of sinne O impudent and malitious lyer hast thou read those bookes of Caluine Insti lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. Melancthō ad Rom. which thou quotest and darest thou for shame of the world if thou haue no feare of God to charge them with holding such a blasphemous positiō when they in the same bookes doe refute it as an horrible slaunder which they neuer thought of but alwayes affirmed that God as a righteous iudge not as an euill author Ioseth Satan and vseth his ministerie for the punishmēt of sin sinners and for the trial and amendment of his children as in Dauid Iob As for those blasphemies that God worketh sinne in vs by himselfe willing appoynting and predestinating vs to sin no lesse thē he which leadeth a blind man out of his way c. are nothing else but Bristowes lies slanders alwaies detested of those godly writers of all them that truly professe and imbrace the Gospel The 16. poynt is of mine ignorance in histories ecclesiastical as of the celebration of Easter by the Britons and Grecians noted before and answered Secondly because I say as it seemeth that Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour after Valens the Arrian Surely where I learned that he was a persecutor of the Church I might haue learned the time of his Emipre that he was next to Cōstantius after him Iouianus Valentinianus Valens sure I am that I learned it out of Carions Chronicle 30. yeares agoe Which being so vulgar a matter I thought none had beene so malicious to charge me with ignorance therof But indeede he chargeth me very iniuriously for when I say after that when Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour I meane to shewe how persecution and Gentility was restored after that Constantine had giuen peace beside the trouble of heresie which was in the time of Constantius and Constans to whom I ioined Valens as agreeing in that same heresie of Arrianisme Againe where I saide the newe Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
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
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes