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
workes Marke also the reason why we are not saued by any workes done by man namely least any shoulde boast For boasting of man is not excluded so long as any workes that he doth may be the cause of his saluation For if Abraham be iustified by workes hee hath whereof to boast but not with God Rom. 4. where is then boasting It is excluded By what lawe of works No but by the lawe of faith Wherefore not onely the workes done before baptisme but all other are excluded from iustification that no man should boast as the Pharisee but that all glory of our saluation might be ascribed wholy to God by Iesus Christ. You therefore building saluation vpon good workes done after baptisme doe manifestly builde vpon another foundation then the onely true foundation Iesus Christ and therefore your errors notwithstanding you cannot as the olde fathers erring in small matters be yet the church of God What Flaccius Illyricus an intemperate man iudged of S. Hierom I haue not to aunswere for him CAP. VI. An aunswere first to all the foresaide errors wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first 600. yeares and afterwarde likeâ—ise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these lateâ— yeares Hetherto we had nothing in a manner but a rehersall of such matters as hee affirmeth to be confessed by me nowe he promiseth to proue that notwithstanding any thing I obiecte the Church hath neuer erred and moreouer that it can neuer erre How well he performeth his promise we shall see by considering his aunsweres and arguments Fulkes zeale in aunswering for Caluin and others being in deede of his Church First he chargeth me to holde that our Church at this present doth not erre and that I neuer say so much as plainely that it may erre In deede I am throughly perswaded that our Church in matters necessary to saluation doth not erre But when I say plainely that not onely euery particular Church but euen the whole Catholike Church on earth of euery age may erre in matters not necessarie to saluation what an impudent creature is this to affirme that I neuer say plainely that our Church may erre He that saith plainly euery man â—â— a lyer doth he not say plainely that both Fulke and Bristowe are lyers But my zeale for Caluin is wonderfull great in his opinion for I say he erreth not but the fathers and the whole Church haue erred A man were as good to reason with a poste as with such a sensles Papist I say Caluin erreth not in such pointes as hee is slaundered of by Allen therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and crie out as loude as I can euery man erreth and yet in Bristowes eares I say Caluin erreth not The like zeale I shewe for Maister Iewel whose learned labours I commende to the iudgement of the world And yet he hath quit himselfe so well saith Bristowe that the very reading of his aunswere hath turned many earnest Protestants into earnest Catholikes as both by the numbers and by the noblenesse of the persons is notoriously knowne I thinke the number and the nobilitie of the conuerts is all alike There runneth such a tale of Copley the great barron of Haie created by the Spanish I wot not howe Lorde of the Maze an auncient rotten house in Southwarke that he shoulde be so conuerted if some popish treason discouered caused him not to faine such a souden and straunge conuersion But yet Bristowe cannot abide that I should exhort English papists to reade that booke and pray to God for direction in the trueth No sir saith he that is not the way to trueth no more then to swallowe poyson and pray is the way to get or keepe health of bodie Alas poore Bristowe hast thou so soone forgot that which thou saidst immediatly before that Iewels booke is such a soueraigne antidote that hath expelled the poyson of Protestants from so many and so noble personages and made them so earnest Catholikes that thou nowe wouldest haue them fly from it as from a poyson We see thy wittie pollicie it is not the way to trueth thou sayest to reade our aunsweres but it is the way to continue meÌ„ in error to suffer them to see nothing but that you say your selues A sure way to winne credit but yet with fooles onely For hee that dare not let his aduersaries aunswere bee seene sheweth plainely that hee dare not abide the tryall but requireth all men to beleeue him vppon his bare worde Where you say I should rather exhort men to reade the auncient writers I aunswere that is needelesse for such whom I exhort to reade maister Iewels replie namely such as cannot wade well out of these controuersies without such conference as they may see betweene maister Harding and maister Iewell The first part concerning the errors that he layd ap 3. par 2. both to the fathers and to vs and first of the crosse and images First where I charge them that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentinians that the reader may wonder at my audacitie he saith Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure nor signe nor vse of the crosse but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones and in them two or 3. Christes and one of the Christs they called Crux c. what say you Bristowe speake they not a worde either of the figure signe or vse of the crosse I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus where he telleth that they call the Zodiak whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen an image of the crosse And when they both tell you that the crosse among the Valentinians had a double vse of confirmation and separation speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse No say you they inuented 30 gods called Aeones and among them diuerse Christs wherof the crosse was one It is a shame to lye on the diuell The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes but emissions of the first great inuisible infinite Acone Neither was the crosse any of those 30. Aeones ages or worldes For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus before he cometh to the crosse videlicet 8. of the first emission tenne of the seconde and twelue of the thirde Neither did they call the crosse Christ but the vertue of Christ confirmatiue separatiue such as healed the woman of the bloudie issue Vnto which they gaue diuerse names calling it in a manner as you papists doe the redeemer the sauior the sanctifier the apoynter of the bounds the bringer vnto further matters the most perfect ende or termination c. But all this while you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse but of a fained mysterie or imagination Then you must vnderstand that of these imagined mysteries they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in
saued the goe in peace But also in many places of the Gospell we reade that our Sauiour vsed this speache that he saith the faith of the beleeuer is the cause of his saluation By all which it is cleare that the Apostle iudgeth rightly that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe See you not that iustification is not only to sett a man in free will discharged of his sinnes committed before baptisme but continueth with him vnto saluation Also where I saide that Origen answereth this obiection which the Papists make against vs for teaching iustification by faith only though Bristowe say it is false it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis c. but peraduenture some body hearing this may become idle and negligent in doing good workes if only faith suffice to iustification Is not this one of the Papists obiections Againe that this doctrine of iustification perteineth only to them that are newly conuerted to Christianity against which Origen sheweth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himselfe that he was righteous and boasting thereof Luk 18. that it perteyneth to all men that boasting may be excluded and that none boast in any thing but in the crosse of Christ Vides Apostol 〈…〉 non gloriantem c. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousnes nor of his chastity nor of his wisdome nor of his other vertues and acts but most manifestly pronouncing and saying let him that gloryeth glory in the Lorde c. and so at length sheweth that all this doth verifie the saying of the Apostle we iudge that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law which before he had interpreted by faith only whether they haue no works going before as the theefe the sinfull woman or whether they haue workes of the lawe without the faith of Christe as the Pharisee or whether they haue neuer so many workes and vertues with the faith of Christe as the Apostle Paule there is but one way of iustification for all men which is by remission of sinnes through faith onely Where Cyprian saith that faith onely profiteth Ad Quirin Cap. 42. Bristowe saith he meaneth that faith profiteth and without faith nothing profiteth I confesse in deede he meaneth all that Bristowe saith and more too namely that faith profiteth therefore workes do not profite vnto iustification as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth to proue his saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for iustice Gen. 15. By which Saint Paule proueth that Abraham was iustified by faith without workes and yet Abraham was not voyde of good workes Out of the Booke De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying That he beleeueth not in God at all which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only To this Bristowe answereth without shame that the Booke De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition coyned by Erasmus as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an vtter enemy to all forgery and supposition would himselfe counterfet a booke vnder the name of Cyprian But Bristowe doubting least he may be conuicted by auncient copies of this booke remaining in Libraries as no doubt but that he may for a second aunswer saith That this sentence is of it selfe Catholike inough For to trust Gods giftes as in the Catholike faith and good workes that he worketh in vs also to trust in Saints to trust in these I say as they be his is to trust in him onely I say sayeth Bristowe what neede we further witnesse or reason But Christe telling a parable against them that trusted in themselues that they were righteous telleth of a Pharisee that trusted in his woorkes as they were the giftes of GOD to whome hee gaue thankes for them Luke 18. This auctority of Bristowe is inough to discharge Pelagius Celestinus and all the rable of freewill men who trusted in nothing but that was the gift of God and so acknowledged by them in so much as they confessed that a man was iustified by the grace of God when he was iustified by his owne workes because God gaue free will and power to worke well also a law by keeping whereof men might be righteous Finally this rule of Bristowe will iustifie a man which putting his trust in Angels worshippeth them as Gods Angells yea which putting his trust in any of Gods creatures trusteth in him alone So that nothing is so singular but he can make it generall nor any thing so generall but he can restrayne it at his pleasure Now that Ambrose also extendeth the grace of iustification by faith only vnto eternal saluation it is manifest as generally throughout his commentarie vppon the Epistle to the Romanes so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. vpon these wordes of the Apostle I thank my God alwaies for you for the grace of God which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesu. Datam dicit c. He saith this grace which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesus which grace is so giuen in Christ Iesus because this is decreed of God that he which beleueth in Christ should be saued without workes obtaining freely remission of sinnes by faith only Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicatione c. that from the preaching of Iohn the lawe doth cease that only faith may suffice vnto saluation which is an abridgment of the law Likewise Exhortatione ad virgines Videtis mysteria c. you see the mysteries you see the grace of Christ the grace of the holy Ghost which is deliuered as it were by a certaine lot because not of workes but of faith euery one is iustified of the Lorde For as the falling out of the lott is not in our power but is such as chaunce hath brought so the grace of our Lorde is not as it were of the merite of hire but is deliuered as of his will This writeth Ambrose of al that are partakers of the grace of God and not of them that are newly baptised or conuerted only Againe in the same Booke he saith speaking of all men that attaine to saluation Hîc quidem luctamur sed alibi coronamur c. here truly we do wrestle but in an other place we are crowned I haue spoken not of my selfe only but of all men generally For whence should I haue so much merite to whom pardon is in steed of a crown What can be said more plainly to exclude the merite of good workes from iustification whereas the reward of good workes that is freely giuen to the iustified man by faith only both Ambrose and we doe neuerthelesse acknowledge 3. About Purgatorye Touching Scriptures expounded against it He sayeth I am taken in a vaine bragge because I beeing vrged by Allen to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead I bring only Hierom referring the reader to other places of Cyprian and Origen
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
But my ignorance is noted of Bristow for saying that superstition was riper in the Latine Church where the seate of Antichrist was appointed to be set vp not knowing that all the olde heresies haue spronge of the Grekes against whome were helde the first foure generall Councels A pithie reason shewing no lesse Logike then knowledge of the Churche storie Foure heresies were condemned by foure councels therefore all olde heresies sprong of the Grecians But I will aske of Bristowe whether Nouatus or Nouatianus captaine of the Nouatians was of the Latine or Greeke Church Iouinian Vigilantius are counted of him to be as great heretikes as Arrius and Macedonius but whence did they spring out of Greece or frō the Latines What shall I name the Donatistes Pelagians Celestians Priscillianistes al which sprange out of the Latine Church And yet it is true that Vincentius affirmeth that vntill the dayes of Stephanus the Bishoppes of the Romaine Church had alwayes earnestly defended the integritie of religion once receiued which he speaketh not as a singular prayse of that Church only for he saith of the same matter immediately before Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia All places are full of such examples And that which Bristow citeth out of Ruffinus in exp Symb that no heresie did spring at Rome is to be vnderstode onely of such heresies as he speaketh of before against the danger of which some clauses were added to the creede For otherwise Ruffinus could not forget what hee him selfe had translated out of Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 33. of Nouatus which being a Priest of the Church of Rome was author of the heresie of the Nouatians 2 What he sayeth of the whole Church in some of those times I say the practise of prayer for the dead is not generall because it is not to be founde in the most auncient times Bristow asketh if nothing be generall but that I finde as though he could find any thing for 200 yeares but in Tertullian the Montanist But the later practise for places he sayeth is generall if I should vrge him to proue it he could not do it I confesse it was common but for all the later time it was not generall The Waldenses for 500. of the last yeares practised it not and almost in euery age some are noted which regarded it not or denyed it 3. To what Origen he confesseth the doctors to referre it to witte vnto scripture and tradition of the fathers I confesse that some of the fathers referre the custom of praying for the dead to the Scriptures and some to the tradition of the Apostles but neither of both truely Bristowe compareth the case with fasting wherof Augustine sayeth that it is euidently commaunded in scripture but the dayes not prescribed So is prayer for the dead but the dayes times and particular prayers are referred to the tradition I aunswere when we see as good scripture for prayer for the dead as wee see for fasting we will say the cases are like How Tertullian denyed prayer and oblation for the dead to be taken out of the scriptures is referred to the ninth Chapter where it shall be answered But he is fayne to denye sayeth Bristowe the most certeine workes of the Apostles schollers Clemens Romanus and Dionysius Areopagita saying that we haue them of some counterfaiting knaue c. quoting for my saying Pur. 268. which I desire the reader to peruse and tell mee how honest a man he is that chargeth a man to say of the works of Clemens and Dionyse that which I speake onely and expressely of the counterfeit epistles of Clemens Concerning the change of the olde Liturgies we shall heare more in the sixt Chapter 4 He contraiewise feareth not nor basheth not to say they had it from the diuell and his lymmes I see no cause why I should feare or bash to affirme that all errours came from the diuell who is a lyer and the father of lyes Neither is it any absurditie to saye that the yerely oblations of thanksgiuing for the dead are heathenish as well as the oblations for the birthes But it is an impudent slaunder that he chargeth mine owne mouth to confesse that the whore of Babylon is the church at the farthest by S. Augustines time which hath patched vp her purgatory sacrifices for the dead for purgatorie and sacrifice for the dead was scarse hatched in S. Augustines time when Augustine him selfe confessed it might be doubted whether there be any such purging fire or no. 5. As touching the Popes supremacy Concerning the Popes primacy he chargeth mee to teach that the Church vanished quite away vpon a souden when Phocas sold the primacie to Bonifacius and yet no man then in the worlde that went out from the Pope The first point is a shamelesse slaunder for I neuer taught that the church vanished quite away the second is true if it be rightly vnderstood no man went from the Pope as from a true member of the church but the Pope rather went out of the church into an antichristian tyrannie But vnderstanding his saying to be that no man departed from the Popes authoritie it is vtterly false for notwithstanding the sale of Phocas the Greeke church neuer yelded to his supremacie The church of Rauenna in Italy long time after withstoode his tyranny and was separated from him in causa autocephalias that shee would haue no head ouer her but he◠owne bishop as the histories affirme Bristowe to excuse the Pope for doing contrarie to Gregories reproofe of the bishop of Constantinople sayeth that he neuer vseth the style of vniuersall bishop but of s 〈…〉 seruorum the seruant of seruants as though it was for the bare style and vsurpation of the title that Gregorie was so earnest and not for the vniuersall authoririe which was claimed by that style in which respect Gregory of humilitie the rest of his successors of hypocrisie called them selues seruants of the seruants of God Now at length Bristowe alledgeth three causes of this his tedious rehearsall of my sayings first that the reader may see in how many points we dissēt frō them whome we confesse to haue bene of the true church I answer so long as we agree in the foundation we are all of one church The second cause that the reader may see I confesse the Papistes to agree with them of the true church in the same A great glorie that you agree with them in a fewe errors and dissent in the most waightie matters of saluation Thirdly that I haue not for these points or any depēding of these iust cause to denye the Papists the true church c. If you erred onely in these points as they did holding all other trueth which those auncient fathers helde wee woulde no more deny you to be members of the true church than wee do them but seeing beside these errors you hold many blasphemous heresies which they neuer helde and
gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
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„
of our 〈…〉 nnes in baptisme but we are saued by baptisme as we â—re inâ—eoâ—fed by a deede that is sealed that is assured of â—aluation as Abraham receiued circumcision the seale â—f the righteousnes which he had by faith before he was â—ircumcised Ro. 4. and euen so he clenseth his church by â—he lauer of water not by the merite of the worke of bapâ—isme but in that he gaue him selfe for it that he might sanctifie it Eph. 5. After the same maner doth baptisme saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of the filth of the flesh â—ut the interrogatioÌ„ of a good conscience before god thoâ—ough the resurrection of Iesus Christ which presuppoâ—eth his death for satisfaction of our sinnes as his resurâ—ection is the speciall cause of our iustification Last of â—ll saith Bristowe he hath made vs kings priestes to God Apo. 1. If spiritual priests ergo to offer vp spiritual sacrifices as of 〈…〉 ur mortification Rom. 12. our almes deedes Heb. 13. both for our â—wne sinnes for the sinnes of other Here in the last point â—he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth but we shal haue reason confirmed by scripture because the â—xternall priest is ordeined to offer externall sacrifices for sinnes â—oth for him selfe for the people Heb. 5. But this cause is many wayes auoided for we are priests to offer vp the onâ—y sacrifices of thanksgiuing not of propitiation for sinne which cannot be without shedding of bloud Heb. 9. Secondly although we be all made priests yet we are not made high priests of which the text speaketh Heb. 5. which office one only can enioy at one time which is our sauiour Christ for terme of his life which is without end Thirdly those sacrifices which the externall priest offered for sinnes could neuer take away sinnes Heb. 10. much lesse our spirituall sacrifices of thanksgiuing for Gods benefites bestowed on vs his whole church I cited further Apoc. 7. These are they that came out of that great affliction haue washed their stoles and made them white in the bloud of the lamb therfore they are in the presence of the throne of god Brist saith this word therefore is referred to their comming out of affliction and so whited their stoles And yet this gloser saith he of me taketh it away from the affliction whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction O impudent and blasphemous heretike when the holy ghost expressely sayeth they made their stoles white in the bloud of the lamb darest thou open thy mouth and saye not only that that whiting was somewhat else then the bloud of Christ but also that it was nothing but that affliction so vtterly excluding the bloud of Christ But I forgot to conferre other places of scripture as he chargeth me Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sinnes to any other thing than to the bloud of Christ Let vs heare what whoso ouercommeth shal be clothed with white garments Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs ouercame the diuell not onely by the blood of the lambe but also by their owne patient confession or affliction vnto death Apoc. 12. The text is and they ouercame him by the bloud of the lambe and by the word of their testimonie and they loued not their liues vnto death Here is no cause of victorie but the bloud of the lambe and the worde of their testimonie which was the confession of their faith the onely instrumentall cause of their iustification and victorie who is he which ouercommeth the world sayth S. Iohn but he that beleueth 1. Iohn 5. Faith therefore the onely shilde to haue victory against the worlde and the diuell hath no power in it selfe to clense our sinnes but leaneth altogether to the bloud of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latine authenticall translation and to turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne martyrdom which is in deede by the worde of their testimonie or which they did testifie whereas by his translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for suffering of death as I thinke it is in no Greeke author sure I am it is neuer so taken in the newe testament But Bristow addeth that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Iesus when the Apostles were mortifyed for Iesus and sayeth they carryed the same about continually in their bodies that also the life of Iesus might also be manifected in their bodies 2. Cor. 4. I wot well wee must be conformable to Christ in sufferings that we may be partakers of his kingdome and glorie but doeth it therefore followe that our sufferings merit this glorie by his bloud or that his bloud without all respect of our merites doeth not alone purge and clense vs from all our sinnes After he had finished the cleansing of our sinnes by his owne selfe sayeth the Apostle he is set downe at the right hande of magnificence in the highest Heb. 1. Last of all Bristowe opposeth that Saint Paul sayth This our affliction although it be but short and light worketh vs euerlasting weight of glory exceeding measure aboue measure 2. Cor. 4. I answere it worketh not by meriting not by purging our sinnes or by satisfying for our iniquities but by making vs conformable vnto our head in passing by the same way of tribulatioÌ„s vnto glorie that he did euen as the way or steppes which leadeth vnto an high place of dignitie maketh not them worthie of the dignitie that must ascende by those steppes vnto it and yet it is necessarie for them that will come to that dignitie to sit in such places to take that ordinary way Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignitie so doeth affliction worke our glory Not to abridge any part of the glorie or merite of Christes suffering by which onely wee are made worthie of glory when all our sinnes being cleansed by his bloud wee appeare righteous before God not in the merite of our owne workes nor hauing our owne righteousnes which is by the lawe but the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ that wee may knowe him of the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable vnto his death Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth that seeing the bloud of Christ purgeth vs of all our sinnes and Iesus Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes committed either after baptisme or before that all other purgings and satisfactioÌ„s are ouerthrowen and so popish purgatorie remaineth without any foundation the purging of Christs bloud making vs most pure and Christ our propitiation being throughly only sufficient to reconcile vs. Secondly directly of Purgatorie it selfe prayer for the dead whether all the elect goe streight to heauen Afore Christes comming Limbus patrum His childish rayling on mine
be carryed vp sir it signifieth to be carried away and seeing the riche man looking vp seeth Lazarus afarre of it followeth that Lazarus was carried vp and not downe But you reply it foloweth not that he was carryed into heauen Then you may say he was carried vp to hell But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heauen although one were vpwarde and also farre off both in state and situation purgatorie peraduenture betwixt them This is a goodly faith that standeth vpon peraduenture and this may be c. The Scripture saith ther was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance betweene them which cannot agree to Limbus which must be harde adioyning to hell or else it is not Limbus But if they were no way nigh together sayth he it will not followe that Abrahams bosome was heauen I answere if they were no way nigh together it could not be hell nor Limbus of hell which is the thing I was to proue Also the text is plaine that Abrahams bosome was a place of comfort And other place of comfort then heauen or Paradise which is all one for the soules departed I finde none in Scripture The last argument is this If righteousnesse belong to Abrahams children the rewarde of righteousnesse also perteineth to them Therefore Abrahams bosome was open to receiue all the childrem of Abraham euen as the bosome of God was readie to receiue Abraham because he was his sonne through faith Heere Bristowe noteth no small blasphemie proceeding of grosse ignorance saying That which is proper to vnigenitus the onely begotten sonne of God hee maketh common to Abraham Why Bristowe because vnigenitus is eternally and after his proper manner in the bosome of the father doth it thereof followe that none can be in the bosom of GOD but the proper place of Christ is made common to them You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my grosse ignorance in the scriptures and haue you such fine knowledge in them that you coulde not see what Esay writeth Chap. 40. according to your owne translation Ecce dominus Deus c. Beholde the Lorde God shall come in strength and his arme shall haue the dominion beholde his rewarde is with him and his worke before him As a sheepheard hee will feede his flocke hee will gather the Lambes together on his arme and beare them in his bosome in sinâ— suo leuabit Beholde you greate and mightie doctours in the scriptures the bosome of GOD as of a shephearde is open to receiue all his Lambes howe much more as a father to receiue his children But to the argument you aunswere The rewarde of righteousnesse may belong to one and yet not payed him as soone as hee dyeth Saincte Paule saying expresly of Abraham and many of his children that they departed not receiuing the promises but beholding them a farre off and all these renouned by faith receiued not the promise That is saith Bristowe the inheritance the rewarde of righteousnesse I replye the rewarde of righteousnesse cannot belonge to one but it must bee payed him as soone as it is payed vnto others to whome the same rewarde vppon the same cause belongeth therefore seeing it is payed to some immediately after their death it is likewise to all That manie dyed not receiuing the promises is partelie vnderstoode of the promises of the lande of Canaan partelye of the full fruition and perfection of rewarde which to all men is denyed before the laste iudgement and so no inequalitie or vniustice vnto any Whether since Christ all goe straight to heauen They that liue vnto Christe dye vnto him and being disolued are with him The soules of the faithfull and the repentant are where Christ is as hee prayeth â—oan 17. so hee saith to the theefe no perfecte iuste â—an but a sinner repentaunt This day thou shalt â—ee with mee in Paradise Luke 23. And Saincte Pâ—ule desireth to bee dissolued and to bee with Christ. To leaue his iugling of seeing Christes godheades glorie and manhoodes glorie whereof I speake no worde hee confesseth the example of Sainct Paul declareth that a perâ—ect iust man goeth straight to Christ Likewise the example if the theefe declareth that a penitent sinner goeth straight to Christ if either his penaunce bee full and perfect or his pardon which is a remission of his penance be plenarie By this you perceiue that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory and not for repentaunce of the hearte and true conuersion vnto GOD But there is a plenarie pardon and satisfaction for all sinnes giuen to euerie penitent sinner therefore euery penitent sinner goeth streight to Christ whom we knowe and beleeue to be in heauen The minor is proued by sainct Iohn 1. Iohn 2. Iesus Christ is our aduocate and propitiation for our sinnes The bloude of Iesus Christe doth purge vs from all sinnes Secondly hee saith I allude to a place Romans 14. wee liue to our Lorde and wee die to our Lord whereby nothing else is ment but that hee is our iudge in life and death A bare exposition if wee haue no more comforte by liuing to the Lorde then that hee shall bee our iudge at our death Howe be it I grounde not myne argument onelye of that phrase to controll Augustines exposition of them that die in the Lorde Apoca. 14. for martyrs onely as you slaunder mee but compare other places of the faithfull that are asleepe in Christ 1. Corin. 15. And they that are deade in Christ 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the deade that dye in the Lorde that text cannot bee restrained onely to the blessednesse of martyrs but extendeth to the happinesse of all that are deade in the Lorde which are all the faithfull But the circumstance of the place saith Bristowe giueth it to bee meant of martyrs I aunswere there is no circumstance that can proue it to bee spoken onely of Martyrs seeing the argument of their blessednesse is dying in the Lorde whiche is common to all the faithfull therefore blessednesse also and that is the iudgement of S. Augustine de ciu dei lib. 20 Cap. 9. whatsoeuer Allen or you prate to the contrarie For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus vpon it Reg. nat itaque The Church therefore nowe first reineth with Christ in the lyuing and in the deade For therefore as the Apostle saith Christ dyed that he shoulde be Lorde ouer the liuing and ouer the deade But therefore he named onely the soules of the Martyrs because they as the chiefe reigne being deade which vnto death striued for the truthe But by a part we vnderstand the whole euen the rest that are deade pertaining to the Church which is the kingdom of Christ. Whether that iudgement may stande with Purgatorie My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting which in
them for triall of the greatest controuersies that are betweene vs of iustification by grace and not by merite of workes of the Popes antichristian supremacie of the Lordes supper of worshipping of images and many other controuersies As for that brabbling of conuerting of nations by them or vs it is not worth the while but a matter of meere contention which can not be decided but by triall whether they or we holde the true faith of the Gospell for into that were all nations conuerted that were turned by the true Apostles As for the conuersion of any nation into false Christianitie proueth not the conuerters to be Apostles But Bristowe bragging of their wonderfull conuersion of nations of India and Affrica which no man reporteth but lying Friers and shamelesse Papistes seemeth to denie that any were conuerted vnto false religion by any false Apostles or Heretikes And first where I saide there are people in Aethiopia which by circumcision and obseruation of the lawe declare that they were conuerted by the false apostles Bristowe opposeth the authoritie of Eusebius reporting the conuersion of Aethiopia to haue beene of the right stampe c. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so smal a countrie that it were not possible for one peece to be conuerted into true Christianitie and another part into corrupt That there are such people as I saide Munster in his Geographie of Aethiopia doth testifie As for the fable of their Emperours submission and the Abbots approbation of Poperie in all pointes may serue to play mocke holiday among the Papistes they can haue no credite among vs. As great a mockerie it is that Bristow abuseth the saying of Irenaeus concerning the Church of Rome in his time lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua c. In which alwaies of them that are round about hath bene kept that tradition or deliuerie of doctrine which is from the Apostles But the praise of the Romane Church of that time is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time which hath forsaken that tradition and embraced newe doctrine neuer heard of from the Apostles daies vnto the time of Irenaeus Where I say it is manifest that the nations of the Alanes Gothes and Vandales were first conuerted by the Arrians Bristowe replieth that in so saying I declare that I neuer read the ecclesiastical stories such is Bristows Logike It were possible I had read them and forgotten them But what could I either reade or remember in the places by him quoted First Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said that Vlphilas Bishop of the Gothes assented to an Arrian or neutrall confession giuen at Constantinople whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus which was Bishop of the Gothes and being present in the Nicene Councel had subscribed thereto he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice First of the Alanes Vandales here is no word nor in any of the places folowing of the Gothes it is said that Theophilus sometime their Bishop was of right faith and Vlphilas also before his subscription and consequently a fewe that were conuerted to Christianitie before the heresie of Arius But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Gothes that was conuerted and of the second also lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted There were two nations of the Gothes the one gouerned by Phritigernes the other by Athanarichus Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus sought aide of Valens the Arrian Emperor and obtaining it put Athanarichus to flight Quae causa fuit c. Which was the cause saith Socrates that verie manie of the Barbarians receiued the Christian faith For Phritigernes that he might shewe him selfe thankefull for his benefite receiued of the Emperor beganne to embrace his religion and to exhort his people to doe the same And for that cause manie Gothes which then to please the Emperors humour had addicted them selues to the Arrian sect vnto this time cleaue fast vnto it At the same time Vâ—philâ—s Bishop of the Gothes inuented the Gothian letters and as soone as he had turned the holie Scripture into their tongue he purposed that the barbarous people should learne the holie Oracles of God But as soone as Vlphâ—las had taught the Christian religion not onely to them which obeyed Phritigernes but also to them that were vnder Athanarichus the same Athanarichus mouing persecution put to death diuers of the Arrian sect c. The same historie reheâ—rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion At verò non istam c. But truely I doe not thinke that this was the onely cause whie the whole nation of the Gothes vnto this time is adioyned to the Arrians but that Vlphilas their bishop although in the beginning he dissented nothing from the Catholike Church yet afterward in the reigne of Constantius through lacke of knowledge he was present at the Councel held at Constantinople with Eudoxius and Acacius which were of the number of Bishops that had bene in the Nicen Councel And so being become an Arrian separated the whole nation of Gothes froÌ„ the Catholike faith This storie sheweth that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conuersion of the Gothes for Vlphilas the Bishop of those fewe that were before that time christened being long before peruerted into Arrianisme was the principall cause of turning both the nations vnto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme But Theodoret â—aith Bristowe lib. 〈◊〉 ca. 37. Who was a Catholike Bishop of purpose to take from the Arrians that vaine bragge of theirs sheweth that the Gothes were first Catholikes and not as you say first conuerted by the Arrians but only by false informations too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas being an other Balaam lead out of the way This purpose Bristowe dreameth of for no such appeareth in his wordes cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium c But my thinke I shall do a thing worth the labour if I shal shew to them that knowe not howe the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians And then sheweth that by persuasion of Eudoxius Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Gothes which before were lightened with the beames of diuine knowledge entred into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens and so deceiued the whole nation Where Theodoret saith nothing contrarie to other histories which shewe that Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Gothes that was vnder him vnto Arrianisme and after Vlphâ—las turned the other nation the was vnder Athanarichus vnto the same corrupt forme of Christianitie sauing that he is contrarie to Socrates and Sozomenus which affirme that Vlphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Councel of Constantinople in the daies of Constantius which reigned before Valens manie yeres That I said of them that were conuerted by the Nouatians and Donatists Purg. 337. Bristow vnderstaÌ„deth of whole nations requireth my histories autors to proue that I
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
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
to coâ—er the saide flesh because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence Beware Sander what you say lest you proue a Sacramentarie Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament another manner of presence then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them Yea it was a glorious and mysticall presence If you coulde holde you there wee shoulde soone bee agreed The eight is to confesse the reall presence and to denye adoration let them answere that defende such presence The ninth howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice siâ—h it is his bodye who is the propitiation for the world Nay howe grosse is this consequence seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice and by that one oblation found eternall redemption Heb. 9. 10. The â—enth grosse imagination is of him who teacheth that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered be wordes of promise and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him which teacheth a gift to be made deliuered and receiued when he which receiueth it is neuer the better for it Finally whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament it is grosse falshood and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures the sense of which and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode is the worde of God CAP. XXVI What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christs supper The Apologie toucheth briefely that the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greeke of some doth expressely forbidde vs that wee shoulde not basely occupie ouâ— mindes about the breade and wine set before vs Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large and gathereth great matters out of them Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa c. Againe here also in the holy table let vs not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vs but lifting vp our minde let vs vnderstand by faith That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde to be set on that holy table to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes and that we truely taking his owne preciouâ— bodie and bloud doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause wee taâ—e not much but litle that we may knowe we take not to fill vs but for holines Out of these wordes ten argumentes he hath to prooue or to helpe to prooue the reall presence of Christes body vnder the formes of bread and wine The first is that bread and wine are set on the table not to be basely considered ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore and a forlorne helpe and a miserable argument For the contrary doth followe the bread must not be basely considered ergo it is breade although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme The second argument is that seeing the wordes of consecration be past in respect of which the Councell sayeth the breade and wine must not be basely considered the wordes did not onely make them a Sacrament as in baptisme c. but also did worke some reall thing vnder the formes of bread and wine which remaineth still as long as the saide formes and signes remaine Nay rather the Councell signifieth that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof is not perfite before the vse and receite of it whereof it speaketh soone after and therefore is not to be basely considered as common breade and wine but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption as for the formes and signes and colours of breade and wine the Councell speaketh not one worde of them but of bread and the cuppe which be substances and not accidental formes The thirde We must vnderstand saith hee not by seeing but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith In deede that is the onely waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body bloud in the Sacrament The fourth We must beleeue that to be the Lambe of God which is on the holy table whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth but of that which is breade and wine and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen by faith Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ. The fifth The Lambe is there so that he is put laide and situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of another thing But if a man should aske you howe that may bee I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it and yet your wordes import a fimilitude Therefore seeing it is without example your position is after an imagined manner Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vnto vs by his holye mysteries as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme not that one thing is situated as another thing which is no where neither any such thing can bee shewed and therefore is nothing but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne The sixt The Lambe is so truely made present that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes vnbloudily Where haue you the worde outwardly or what argument haue you of an outwarde oblation except you thinke Priestes cannot offer but outwardly Naye rather in that the Councel sayth the Lamb is offered vnbloudily it signifieth that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes for without shedding of bloud there is no sacrifice for sinnes Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onely insacrificable sacrifice of Christe is celebrated in that holy action The seuenth After the sacrifice made the people doe partake with the altar which could not bee except a permanent substance were made by consecration The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ in the mysticall tokens of our redemption which ouerthroweth priuate Masse Communion in one kinde and transubstantiation and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite before it be receiued The eight Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ is to take it really and bodily The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking but of taking by faith when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ. The ninth taking of that which standeth before vs on the table is by the instrument of our bodies therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell A shamelesse collection of a false argument For that which standeth on the table the Councell calleth breade and the cuppe which is taken and deliuered externally and by corporall instruments the rest must be vnderstoode by
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
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
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
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
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
incarnation because his soule was illuminated with the visioÌ„ of God to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where cleare vision is there is no faith saith Sander Not considering that Christ did voluntarily empty him selfe of all such pretogatiues of his godheade as might hinder him to haue experience of all our infirmities except sinne And therfore S. Luke testifieth that Iesus incresed in wisedom and stature and fauour with God men But where such cleare vision is as Sand. imagineth there is no increase of wisdome gods gifts And concerning faith read the 22. Psal. which is a prophecie of Christ professing his constant faith in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked which saide he trusted in God let him deliuer him c. Yea the Apostle to the Hebrewes proueth the humanitie of Christ by this Psal. 16. where the prophet speaketh in the person of Christ I wil put my trust in him that is in God yet Sander saith he neuer had faith but more then faith As though a greater a more perfect faith were not faith Iewel Likewise he saith we are ioyned vnto Christ by the regeneration of one nature and againe wee are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptisme hereof he coÌ„cludeth therefore are we naturally ioyned to him Sand. S. Hilarie hath not the terme naturally of our coniunction vnto Christ by baptisme which terme D. Harding hath found to appertaine to the sacrament Fulke A simple quarel to make such outcries of the terme naturally when Hilarie hath termes in all reasonable mens iudgements equiualent concluding that all Christians are one not onely by wil but also by nature Because they are cloathed with one Christ by the nature of one baptisme And where I pray you hath either Harding or you found that Christs body is in yâ— sacrament naturally according to M. Iewels challenge wil you neuer leaue this beggerly sophistrie Harding hath found this terme to appertaine to the sacrament ergo he hath answered M. Iewels challenge Iewel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundrie meanes and therfore not onely as M. Harding holdeth by receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by baptisme euen so and none otherwise hee is in vs by the sacrament of his bodie Sand. It is not confessed that Christ is in vs naturally c. Fulke But it is prooued that by nature wee are one with him But that Christ shoulde be corporally in our bodies Hilarie saith neither of faith baptisme nor of the supper Sand. You distinguish regeneration from baptisme as though baptisme were not the sacrament that did regenerate Fulke He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect as you make it or the signe from the thing signified as Hilarie meaneth deserueth no reproofe in wisemens iudgement Sand. If Christ be none otherwise in vs by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptisme why do you make it a seuerall way from the other before named Fulke Because all these 4. seuerall wayes may notwithstanding agree in one spirituall manner of coniunction which hath no neede of your Popish reall presence Sand. The vnitie of Christes birth sufficeth not to proue that Christ is one with vs for that vnitie of nature might be thought to pertaine no more to the good then to the euill Fulke There is farther required the vertue of Christs spirite to make that naturall vnitie effectuall to giue vs eternal life this vniting vertue is testified by the sacrament Sand. S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstande that in the sacrament we take the word made flesh so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh Fulk He expoundeth himself saying we take it verily vnder a mysterie vnder a sacrament which mysterie is not the forme breade and wine for that is an open and sensible thing Iewell That wee verily and vndoubtedly receiue Christs bodie in the sacrament it is neither denied nor in question Sand. You saide before that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Iohn which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure againe you said the bread is a figure this is confuse and contrarie doctrine Fulke This is wretched wrangling An outward sacrament which is a figure added to spirituall eating taketh not away spirituall eating but helpeth our faith in spirituall eating Sand. You confessed before that the sacrament is receiued with the mouâ—â— now you confesse that Christs bodie is receiued in the sacrament therefore Christs bodie is receiued with the mouth Fulke Your minor shoulde be the sacrament is Christs bodie which in your sense is not yet confessed otherwise your syllogisme is as good as this Baptisme is receiued on the outside of the bodie the holy ghost is receiued in baptisme therfore the holyghost is receiued on the outside of the bodie Sand. The aduerbe verily in this place doth signifie naturally really and substantially For as the worde is made flesh really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meate The worde was not made flesh onely by our faith but in trueth of his substance Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith onely but in trueth of his substance Fulk The aduerbe verily in this place signifieth truly according to the thing but not that according to the manner of the thing in al points wee take the flesh of Christ in the Lordes meate as the same was incarnate in the Virgins wombe but as Hilarie himselfe saith afterwarde Verè sub mysterio We receiue the flesh of his bodie truly vnder a mysterie which excludeth naturally or a natural manner of receiuing We eate Christ as truely as he was made man borne of the Virgin Mary but not in the same manner we eate him not sensibly visibly palpablie in length bredth and thicknesse as hee was made fleshe but vnder a mysterie or sacrament of his flesh which is communicated vnto vs after a spirituall manner And where you say the worde was not made flesh onely by our faith therefore we take his flesh not by faith onely Neither is the antecedent true nor the conclusion right For Christ was not made flesh onely by our faith nor by our faith at all For our faith was no meane of his incarnation Where vpon I might as rightly conclude The word was not made flesh by our faith at all therefore we take not the worde being made flesh by faith at all This argument is as good vpon the aduerbe verily vsed by S. Hilarie as that which you make Iewel It is the bread of the heart hunger thou within thirst thou within Sand. As Christ by taking real flesh is much the better breade of the heart hungred within so it is extreme madnesse to thinke that Christes bodie giuen vnder the forme of breade is therefore lesse hungred
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the