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
owne eyes but that which I commaunde you that onely shall you do without adding any thing to it or taking any thing away from it After a fonde quarrell of the quotation omitted by the printer and his coniecture thereupon Moses sayeth not saith Bristowe That onely which I doe write but that onely which I commaund And so our sauiour Christe commaundeth the Iewes accordingly The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire and therefore whatsoeuer they commaund you obserue it I aske no better wee must obserue that only which God coÌ„mandeth whether Moses or any other of the Prophets apostles or Euangelists haue written it whether the Scribes or Pharisees pastors or teachers do preach it But where shal we finde that which God hath coÌ„maunded but in the law the prophets in the writings of the apostles euangelists which are able to make vs wise to saluation which are profitable to make that man of god perfect prepared to al good works As for the pinnes saith Bristow you may see in the doctors they were not for that cause you imagine of leauing nothing to mans deuise in that worship of God For how say you then by Dauid Salomon who changed not only a pinne but all the pinnes the whole tabernacle into the temple ordeined musicall instruments and manye other thinges for the worship of God that the lawe did not mention I aunswere whatsoeuer Dauid and Salomon chaunged and ordeyned they did not by the deuise of man but by reuelation from God who had ordeined them to doe it But mine error is sayeth Bristow because I do not distinguish betwene men that haue onely their owne humaine spirites and men that haue the spirite of God as Moses the Propheâ—â— and Apostles and the catholike Church I were in deedâ— in a grosse errour if I could not distinguish the spirite of God from the spirite of man But Bristowe erreth because he confoundeth men that were specially chosen to receiue the worde of God by reuelation and the same to preach and write as the Prophets and Apostles with the Church which consisteth of men hauing the spirite of adoption but for the certeintie of trueth buylded vpon the foundation of the Prophets Apostles or else erring if they depart from that foundation The digression he maketh to the vnlearned brother because I knowe not the treatise against which he writeth I omitt But where he returneth to admonish mee his fellowe Fulke as he calleth mee to looke better to my Logike concerning mine argument ab authoritate nâ—gaâ—iuâ— I do him to witt that God I thanke I am not to learne Logike nor the force of an argument of authoritie negatiuely of him The argument that angreth him is this All true doctrine is taught in the Scriptures Purgatorie is not taught in the scriptures therefore Purgatorie is no true doctrine Here are two faultes sayeth Bristowe one because the maior is false the other supposing the maior were true yet cannot the argument be opposed to our arguments of traditions councels fathers I will first proue the maior That whereby the man of God may be made perfect furnished to all good workes is taught in the Scriptures 2. Tim. 3. All true doctrine is that whereby the man of God may be made perfect prepared to all good workes Therefore all true doctrineâ—s taught by the scriptures Againe That which is able to make a man wise to saluation teacheth all true doctrine needefull to saluation for of other truethes we speake not but the scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation ergo 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth all true doctrine And concer 〈…〉 g the seconde fault which supposeth the maior mi 〈…〉 were true yet denyeth the argument I woulde 〈…〉 sh you fellowe Bristowe to looke better to your 〈…〉 gike howe an argument that is true in matter and 〈…〉 rme may not be opposed against you But you 〈…〉 ing a wittie example if you prooue a doctrine vnto 〈…〉 câ— out of the olde testament and I oppose therunto 〈…〉 y negatiue argument and saye All true doctrine 〈…〉 aught in the newe Testament that doctrine is not 〈…〉 ght in the newe testament therefore that doctrine 〈…〉 o true doctrine You aske mee whether this be well 〈…〉 posed of mee I aunswere no neither woulde I euer 〈…〉 pose such an argument against you which though it 〈◊〉 true in forme yet it is manifestly false in matter 〈…〉 r if you suppose the maior to be true as you say that 〈…〉 olde it and must holde it especially if you say so then 〈…〉 he minor vtterly false for then no doctrine is taught 〈◊〉 the olde testament but the same is taught also in 〈◊〉 newe Testament Wherefore this example prooueth 〈…〉 t but that mine argument ab authoritate negatiuè is 〈…〉 ghtly opposed against traditions councels fathers 〈…〉 ch like as auouch any doctrine for true which is not 〈…〉 ght in the Scriptures in which all trueth is taught The second part Of Scriptures alledged concerning the question of the Church â—â—d first what he alledgeth indefinitely that the Church may 〈…〉 re The firste text cited Ar. 86. Euery man is a lyar â—herfore the whole Chuch militant consisting of men â—hich are al lyars may erre alltogether Against this Bristowe asketh Why I doe not saye 〈…〉 e Church triumphant And demaundeth whether 〈…〉 at also doe not consist of men I aunswere the scrip 〈…〉 re Psalm 116. speaketh of men liuing in this worlde 〈…〉 d such as are meere men lest he should cauill at our 〈…〉 uiour Christ which is a man and yet not contained in this generall rule As for the members of the triumphant Church whether they may properly be câ—lled men I will not dispute but wee speake as the scripture speaketh of men on earth and the Church o 〈…〉 â—arth And therefore although it be true that somâ— men by the gifte of God are veraces true yet nere which may not erre And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather Purg. 451. God onely is not true if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot erre is not auoided by saying the Apostles cannot erre For vndoubtedly the Apostles did erre That their preachings and writings were not erronious it was because they were not theirs but the enditing of the holy ghoste by them But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope it is manifest by this that he hath spoken contrary to the spirite of God in the Scriptures not onely in matters of controuersie betweene him and vs but also in heresies condemned by both partes The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I saye The true onely Church of God hath no such priuilege graunted but that she may be deceiued in some things for her knowledge is vnperfect her prophecying is vnperfect Bristowe replyeth that S. Paul in that speach includeth him selfe Our knowledge our prophecying c. is vnperfect whether we speake or write And sayth that he troweth I will
that is the circum 〈…〉 ised the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith as Aâ—raham in both the states was iustified by faith without the workes of the law although as Iames sayth he was â—ustified before men by his oblation which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith and obedience Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done but according to his owne great mercie 〈…〉 e saved vs by baptisme Bristowe asketh if I marke the temps Yea very well he speaketh of workes before faith And doth it therefore followe that works done after faith doe iustifie Saint Paule extendeth the saluation which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth and renewing of the holy Ghoste which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour vnto eternall life therefore it followeth that beeing iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke which is the iustification of Saintes made white in the bloud of the lambe but with the filthy ragges of mannes righteousnesse Bristowe asketh where I learned to call the good workes done in the Church the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse Verily euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church All we are as an vncleane person and all our righteousnesse as filthy ragges For although God accept our workes that are done in faith and pardon their imperfection yet when they are obtruded vnto him to iustifie vs he abhorreth them as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes Apoc. 19. are good workes Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn 3. He that worketh iustice is iust where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man not of the cause No flesh is iust by workes of the law but by faith by which God maketh iust euen the vngodly man But how much better conference is it to know what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth which is the iustification of Saintes to compare it with other places of the same prophecie as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed howe the stoles of the faithful are made white with the bloud of the lambe and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ Ephe. 5. Touching freewill I saide we beleeue that man after his fall hath not free will no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the worde we are not sufficient but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apte to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptnes is of God To this Bristowe replyeth that naturall free will is not taken from vs nor naturall aptnes of will I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher and not like a flat Pelagian But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good which is none but bondage vnto euill except he be regenerate and then is his will framed of God in parte to good but not perfectly in this life as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies as for freedome opposite to coaction if Bristowe meane that by reteyning of free will I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint but not from seruilitie vnto sinne Whereof Saint complaineth Rom 7. Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e mainteined if Gods spirite haue any place that di 〈…〉 ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his owne will 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes which is 〈…〉 ery true but without working of Gods spirite our will 〈…〉 at h no aptnesse vnto any good thing Againe he saith 〈…〉 hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes that are freely gi 〈…〉 en and not of them that make a man acceptable as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts which are not freely giuen And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all working of Gods spirite euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ and not of speciall graces onely So that Bristowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose or matter 〈…〉 n question For I holde that we haue no aptenesse vnto 〈…〉 ny good of our owne freewill but onely of the grace of God Bristow saith I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent if we haue willes of our owne which I neuer 〈…〉 enied but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good before they be framed therto by Gods spirit is the thing 〈◊〉 denye About good workes in speciall namely prayer to Saintes 〈…〉 astinge merites Concerning inuocation of Saints I saide Purg. 451. wee call not vpon Saints because we beleeue not in theÌ„ for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee beleue not Rom. 10. To this reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place he saith first that Saint Paule did often inuocate call vppon the faithfull beseching them to pray for him which is a toye to mocke with an Ape for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte and could helpe his greefe but onely of charitie desireth their prayers Secondly he asketh where is any Scripture that we must beleeue in God onely Forsooth amongst many this shal suffice which is written in Ieremie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said the people beleeued God and Moses his seruant as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets and beleeuing in them which is to put our trust in them The like I saie to the seconde place quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people if they giue credite to Gods Prophets Credite Prophetis eius But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue belyke because of the preposition beth which is a miserable shift Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen to differ from the Latine and English phrase and especially from the sense of beleuing that is trusting in God which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature which is not God He quoteth also Philemon whose loue faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu and towards all his Saints where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ and loue to the Saints But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue he saith in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood Iohn 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ because he is
I aunswere the argument is not of the onely naming of two but of the whole argument of the Apostle which is to proue that â—he fathers in participation of the sacramentes were equall with vs which were not sufficiently proued if hauing named onely two there were other fiue wherein wee are superior to them So that the naming of two is in this place the excluding of all other except those two Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen Wee read of the other fiue in other places Where I pray you Of Confirmation Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes Of Penance you read Iohn 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes I reade but of auricular confession and satisfaction I reade not Of extreme vnction you reade Iac. 5 of annoynting the sicke with oyle which by a speciall gift recouered health of body as well as remission of sinnes at the prayer of the faithfull I reade but of anealing men desperatly sicke which hath no hope of bodily recouerie I reade not Of orders you reade Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all although I reade that the Apostles were commaunded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him which were before ministers of his sacramentes and preachers of his worde but of Bennet and Collet coniurer subdeacon or masse priest I reade not in all the Scripture nor of Deacon in that Chapter Of Matrimonie both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ but long before in Paradise and is no more a sacrament of the newe testament then the raynebowe which yet with the couenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians But you confesse you reade not in those places that they are sacramentes no more doe you reade 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else This is a stale quarrell of the name of sacramentes which is not founde in Scripture although the thing signified by the name that is the seales of Gods promises and the name of signe of Gods couenants be often founde But your laste refuge is that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie which in antiquitie was by baptisme confirmation the complement of baptisme and the Euchariste and therefore speaketh not of the rest Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose which was to shewe that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace without a godly life woulde not serue to assure vs that God was pleased withvs it is cleare that the Corinthians among whome Saint Paul so long had preached coulde not bee without all other sacraments if any other were They had children to bee confirmed they themselues were married elders were to bee ordered offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled manie were sicke and some were fallen a sleepe to bee anealed And Saincte Paule saith expressely they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite 1. Corinth 1. Wherefore that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres and not knightes exercised in battell it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsiâ— heade and no trueth to bee verified of the Corinthians Secondly I say of the sacramentes in generall that they giue not grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought but after the faith of the receiuer and according to the election of Go◠〈◊〉 Corin. 10. Againe howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought if faith were requisite in them that receiue them This argument saith Bristowe holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion Why sir the passioÌ„ of Christ giueth not grace but to the faithfull and electe of God But faith you say is no work nor instrumeÌ„t but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde that the fire worketh vppon I will not enter into any philosophicall disputation with you whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon perhaps you thinke that water is moyster then ayre which error if you had no more cannot make you an heretike But I meruaile what cause you will make faith seing you exclude it from efficients except you make it a matter for the sacraments to worke vpon or else I know not what you meane by that your disposition lyke drienesse in woode which in deede is the thinne ayer more apte to receiue inflammations then the thicke water but perhaps you make it onely a potentia like materia prima for you adde that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought without the good motion of the vser onely so hee doe no part obicem that is so he doe not withstand the working as if a man be baptised sleeping and thinking nothing of it Neuerthelesse seing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient when you haue saide all that you can except you will teach vs newe gramer and Lògike You confesse the scripture sayth that by beleeuing and other good actions wee worke our owne saluation Phil. 2. as by way of meriting but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament neither doe I say that wee worke the effecte of any sacrament but that God worketh in vs according to faith which he giueth vs and his election You say further that the scripture teacheth that the passion of Christ giueth to our deedes vertue to merite where is that scripture written for vntill you shewe me where it is written I will say still to you as I saide to Allen the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie beleeuing stedfastly that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ of Christ Iesus without respect of our works Rom. 3. 4. But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue that I shew manifolde ignorance where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion and so graffed into his bodie is his holy spirite of promise which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritaunce who worketh in vs faith as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confirmation of our faith as was circumcision to Abraham when he was iustified before through faith Rom. 4. Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth turneth his heade away from the matter and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme as hee saith but in deede of
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
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
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
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