All true doctrine is taught in the scripture Purgatorie is not taught in the scripture therefore purgatorie is no true doctrine Bristowe denyeth both the maior and minor The maior I haue prooued in this chapter part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church which I also confesse to be the true Church in the thirde counce 〈…〉 of Carthage and therefore it is canonicall if any other scripture be Canonicall Supposing that which is false that the Macabees were canonicall yet is not Purgatorie prooued by them prayer for the deade doeth not necessarily drawe purgatorie after it The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade yet they doe not receiue the doctrine of purgatorie But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical he citeth the third councel of Carthage wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon whereas wee knowe there are onely three namely the Prouerbes the Canticles and the Preacher Therefore that canon prooueth a manifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon and say they bee Canonicall if any other scripture bee Cano nicall The Councell of Laodicea more auncient nameth not the Machabees Hierome a Priest of Rome expressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall Praefatione â—n Prouerbia Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues doe minister which agree that they were writen by the spirite of man and not by the spirite of God To proceede Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie that wee may not praye for all men liuing I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death of which Iohn saith I say not that you shoulde pray for it or that any man should pray for it as your vulgar traÌ„slation hath it But howe it is prooued out of that place he saith neuer a worde Last of all purgatorie is taught saith Bristowe Specially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently that Martha and Marie as the scripture is manifest did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his bodie before the generall resurrection If that bee so manifest what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Martha woulde haue Christ to pray for when shee saide thus vnto him But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges thou shalte aske of God God will graunt thee To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place Thus farre Bristowe But I pray you sir why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so expounde the place Peraduenture they were not worth the naming But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the comming of Christe to all times after as though I sayd that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie as Allen impudently coniectureth that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their prayers made at his tombe where there is no mention of any prayers but of lamentation only I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or honestie or else lesse impudence malice But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine order as I aunswered Allen but in this confuse manner to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt and then to play with them at your pleasure 2 Ab authoritate scripturae affirmatiuè First about certaine foundations of purgatorie and prayer for the dead I saide the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall Veniall shewing that all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or veniall except the sinne against the holy ghost Bristowe saith that I here graunt the doctrine and yet deny the distinction which is vtterly false for that all sinnes deserue eternall death and yet be pardonable it ouerthroweth the doctrine and distinction both For the Papistes holde that there are some sinnes so small as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe extendeth not vnto eternall death saying that hanging on tree or crucifying is not eternal death and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21. Againe euery one in the saying of the Apostle is not meant of Christians but of them which trust in the lawe it selfe c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce Nequaquam moriemini Tush you shall not die the curse of God doeth not bring eternall death you neede not be so greatly affraide of it c But where learned you Bristowe that the curse of God which is vppon him that hangeth on tree is not a visible token that hee deserueth eternall death Is â—ot the text plaine against you Deut. 21. When a man â—ath sinned worthy of death and is iudged to death â—anged on the tree his carcase shall not remaine vppon 〈…〉 e tree but shal be buryed the same day for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath â—iuen thee to possesse He is not therefore accursed beâ—ause he is hanged on the tree if he were innocent but â—ecause he hath sinned worthie of death so is hanged 〈◊〉 which respecte our sauiour Christ being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree though most innocent in his owne person 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes became â—ccursed for vs not to discharge vs of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternall death but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall vppon an innocent person but 〈◊〉 redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe whiche wee â—aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifolde sinnes and transgressions And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e payne of eternall death I wishe euerie man 〈…〉 at will not bee deceyued with the flattering voyce 〈…〉 f the Serpent to giue eare to the worde of GOD â—here hee shall see that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people â—gainst idolaters cursers
Allens supposition that the ful force of Christs death would sup vp al sinne al paine for sinne death temporall and eternall hell purgatorie and all paine c. But what reasons hath Bristow against my saying First my assertion is saith he As though it were not of force to worke any whit more than it worketh in acte as to saue so much as one of them that shal not be saued I say it is of force to worke euen as much as God will but not to worke against the will of God But I speake contrarie to the expresse scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes and not for our sinnes only but also for the sinnes of the whole world 1. Ioh. 2. If you vnderstand the whole world for euery man in the world then it foloweth that God is reconciled for al men so no man shall be damned But S. Iohn meaneth by his general word al the elect of the world as when he saith The whole world is set on mischiefe he meaneth not euery person but all the reprobate 1. Ioh. 5. And that Christes death is not a propitiation of the sinnes of al the wicked of the world and reprobates it is certaine by that he refuseth to pray for the world that is for the reprobates of the world Iohn 17. But Bristowe vrgeth me with mine owne saying in an other contrarie to this Concerning the sufficiencie of Christes redemption there is nothing that can be spoken so magnifically but that the worthinesse thereof passeth and excelleth it This should haue come in among the contradictions if Bristowe had remembred it But I beseech you sir in commending the sufficiencie of Christes redemption doe I extend the force of his death beyond the limits of his will Are any more redeemed than Christ would The sixt I say that to remit sinnes is proper to his diuinitie That is saith Bristowe as though Christ doth not remit sinnes according to his humanitie I say Christ which is a person consisting of God and man doth remitte sinnes by absolute auctority but that is proper to his diuinity and not to his humanity as for the power which he hath giuen to his ministers to remit sinne is not absolute but to declare remission of sinnes in his name Neither did the people which glorified God for giuing such power to men Matth. 9. acknowledge the doctrine of the Church for the remission of sinnes by the ministery of man but praised God for giuing the gift of healing vnto Christ whom yet as young scholers they acknowledge not to be God but an holy Prophet sent of God And so the other Euangelists report their praising of God to haue beene for that they neuer sawe it so they had seene wonderfull things that day Mark 2. Luk. 5. The 7. he chargeth me to teach a pestilent doctrine of desperation Where I say there be sinnes for which the Church ought not to pray euen of men remaining in this life for which it is not lawfull to pray which by the mercy of God are not pardonable it is false that so long as men are in this worlde they may repent For which he quoteth Pur. 274 127. 128. 135. 283. After he asketh how many such sinnes there are and saith in one place I name two and after more and after concludeth that in some I say that it is vnlawful to pray for any wicked person of what sort so euer his wickednesse be so long as he continueth in his wickednesse yea and it is vnpossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickednesse This is a pestilent slander for I neuer accounted any sinne irremisible but onely the sinne against the holy Ghost for obstinate and willfull apostasie is the sinne against the holy Ghost whereof a fruite is finall contempt of all that preach Christ and of all meanes that Christ hath wrought to bring vs to repentance such was the sinne of Saul and of the obstinate Iewes for whome Samuel and Ieremie are forbidden to pray As for that I should say it is not lawfull to pray for any wicked person c. I neuer thought it but onely for those that sinne against the holy Ghost of whom Saint Iohn saith they sinne vnto death and I say not that any man should pray for that 1. Ioan. 5. Neuerthelesse Bristowe affirmeth that we are worse then the Nouatians when I say That some sinnes neither by the mercy of God are pardonable But where doe I say so he quoteth before Pur 128. And what be my wordes there Verily who so will turne the booke shal reade them thus For by the iustice of God all sinnes are mortall but by his mercy they are all pardonable except that sinne vnto death wherof Iohn speaketh 1. Ioh. 5. Thus am I worse thā a Nouatian for saying the sinne against the holy Ghost shall neuer be pardoned neither in this life nor in the world to come But perhaps Bristowe will cauill that euen that sinne is pardonably by Gods mercy if God would which is not contrary to that I saide For I speake of that which may be Gods eternall will standing according vnto which the Apostle saith it is impossible that they which so offende can be renewed by repentaunce Hebrewes 6. The heresie of the Nouatians as Bristowe affirmeth of the report of Aresius their Bishop was That they who after baptisme fall into that kinde of sinne which the holy scriptures call sinne vnto death ought not to be admitted to receiue the diuine mysteries but to be exhorted to repentaunce and to looke for hope of forgiuenesse not of the Priestes but of God who both can and hath authoritie to forgiue sinnes In which sentence a double error of the Nouatians is included first that they tooke that sinne vnto death wherof Saint Iohn speaketh 1 Iohn 5. to be falling through frailty in time of persecution euen as Bristowe doth the willfull prolapsion and Apostasie that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 6. Secondly that they thought the sinne vnto death might be remitted of God contrary to the manifest denunciation of our Sauiour Christe Matth. 12. As Bristowe doeth the sinne against the holy Ghoste which is all one and the same But that the Catholique Churche did then by her Priestes forgiue all sinnes without accepting the sinne against the holy Ghost which Bristowe affirmeth out of the confession of Acesius I maruell howe he proueth Yea he is so impudent to say that the Protestantes also doe admit all to their Caluines breade so the blasphemous dogge barketh against the holie Communion whereas we neuer receiue any whome we knowe to be excommunicated and much lesse would we receiue any apostata that is cleane fallen from Christianitie not of weakenesse or ignorance but of malicious contempt or any whome we might knowe to haue sinned that sinne vnto death and to haue blasphemed against the holie Ghost But nowe let vs see what miserable comfort Bristowe will minister against desperation in answering such places
of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour whose fruite is forbidding of marrying eating of meates 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable for what cause of religion so euer it be And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists than against those open blasphemers But howe proueth Bristowe that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites Forsooth because Augustine sayeth Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint vt propria nulla possideant ab esâ—a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius Philaster verò hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam Some say that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie but onely such as conteine from marriage and haue so renounced the world that they possesse no proper goods yet Epiphanius sayeth not that they abstain from eating of flesh but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence The similitude which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites is onely in the abstinence from marriage and meates and possessions not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained For seeing Aerius was an Arrian he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance And although he were the scholer of Eustachius yet it followeth not that he held all pointes as his maister did Augustine chargeth him to haue added these matters of his owne Beside that diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists concerning the marriage of priestes and the abstinence from meates howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry and hope to them that eate fleshe yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write that they which be marryed be in the flesh and cannot please God Ep. ad Him Tarrat And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited all the world doth know 4 Of Ceremonies and Liturgies The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued Bristowe quarreling that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth Tamen ecclesia c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life And I reply notwithstanding that they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle Quamuis enim c. For although neither this can be founde howe they are against the faith yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens which the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable which although they haue not knowen the time of libertie yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens not to humaine presumptions But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine that if the whole church vse any thing it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question whether that should be so vsed I answere wee speake of approuing of vsages not of any thing that is generally vsed The church is S. Augustines time approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent without open abrogation which yet were diuerse in diuerse places Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason that many of them are abrogated he answereth that is no good argument for there might be good cause to abrogate them although they came of the tradition of the Apostles as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded To the former decree I reply that it was temporall and not meant by the makers to be eternall but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both although for necessitie of health a nightcap kercheffe or such like couering according to the custome of the country be not absolutely prohibited As for the forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees which might be abrogated nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe so 〈…〉 et it passe although I knowe not what he meaneth to say that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies is neuer denied of me but fondly alledged of him which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued as commaundements of the scripture referring euery blynde ceremonie whereof he knoweth none author to tradition of the Apostles Nowe concerning the Liturgies he sayth Proclus answereth why Basil Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them he sayth forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames which was too loÌ„g for the peoples cold deuotion But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome to be counterfeits for ther is small difference in the length of them and in a manner none at all As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome but that proueth not these which we haue at this day to be the same seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour Nicholas the bishop in Chrysostome which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death But that prayers for the dead were vsed in the ancient Liturgies that were before Chrysostomes tyme Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries memorie should be made
of parents murtherers ince 〈…〉 uous persons remouers of their neighbours markes oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers c. and generally against all transgressours of the Lawe vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned â—n the same wordes ' that it is to the rest Marke also where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse proâ—eth all them that bee vnder the lawe to be subiectâ— vnto this curse howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous but continuing vnder the Lawe they may auoyde eternall death And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle is not meant of Christians I woulde knowe of him whether the Galathians to whome saint Paule writeth were not Christians but yet seduced by false Apostles to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe which as it was impossible so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ vnto the curse of God That true Christians are discharged of this curse it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction and not that the sinnes themselues deserue not euerlasting death though they bâ—â— neuer so small of their owne nature by the sentence of Gods curse which is a iust rewarde for transgression Heb. 2. The two other places that I cite for this purpose The soule that sinneth shall dye Ezech. 18. and the rewarde of sinne is death Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consummate gendreth death as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne not brought into acte to deserue death because shewing that the cause of mens destruction iâ— in themselues from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death Our sauiour Christe saith this is condemnation that light is come into the worlde and men haue loued darknes rather then light Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also of this place to conclude that condemnation perteineth not to men but where the light offered is refused or that if Christ had not come none had ben condemned Iohn 3. and likewise yea much rather wher Christ saith If I had not come and spoken vnto them they shoulde not haue had sinne Iohn 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement before Christ came But let vs examine his reason It is sinne saith he as soone as it is gendred but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred Therefore some sinne there is that gendreth notd eath The minor is false for Sainct Iames saying that sinne consummat gendreth death doth not say that sinne gendreth not death so soone as it is gendred But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the scripture hee addeth also an exception vnto sinne consummat that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death except the matter bee of weight accordingly For els that the lightnesse of the matter as an idle worde bringeth not death hee sufficiently signifieth in saying that in a weightie matter the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not These are his wordes by which you may see that without all shame hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames as hee can finde neuer a worde in hiâ— sounde like such 〈◊〉 saying But this is the manner of heretikes which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture and to inforce the wordes thereof against all equitie to signifie and say whatsoeuer it pleaseth them Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death I will proue out of his owne saying by this argument Whosoeuer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements deserueth eternall death Whosoeuer offendeth in one is guiltie of all therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one deserueth eternall death The maior I truste you will graunt The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and offende but in one pointe hee is guiltie of all Then seeing euerie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe as Sainct Iohn affirmeth Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes but also small sinnes wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake for bee the sinne neuer so small it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes which reason the Apostle vseth to prooue that hee which offendeth in one is guiltie of all And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe sufficiently proue that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall Whether after sinne remitted payne may remayne That God remitteth the punishment with the fault in respect whereof the punishment is due I proue by Ezek. 18. 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences that truely turneth vnto him bringing forth the fruits of repentance Bristow saith this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment whereby it would ensue that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet Psal 24. 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth and Lorde remember not our olde sinnes which are the prayers of the penitent to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes which once obtained they say The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs as farre as the East is from the West Psalme 102. That may bee saith Bristowe in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment I will proue that to bee false To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West is as farre as may bee but not to bee remoued from temporall punishment is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West But the whole Psalme saith Bristowe is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fauour by absolution but of our finall restitution which shall bee at the later day What can bee saide more absurdly Thankes are there giuen to GOD not onely for spirituall benefites but also for temporall The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them is there set forth which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth and East from West As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church vppon the feaste of Christs ascension to proue that it pertayneth altogether to the later day is as good as it is true â—hat the wordes there spoken are onely of our finall â—estitution at the later day To the example of the publican hee aunswereth â—hat there is no more saide but that hee went home â—ustified
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
argumentes with that impudent slaunder of all the church of God which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it within these 300. yeres I passe ouer come to the matter in question I said Purg. 57. against Allen mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell it is to be proued with manifest arguments autorities out of holy scriptures Although they were not nor yet are in perfect blessednes God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs shuld not be made perfect Heb. 11. But by this text saith Brist S. Paul doth meane that their soules were not yet admitted into heauen How proueth he that forsooth the old testament did consummate nothing c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted Christ died c. A sore bolt as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen but by the new testament or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith Heb 9. That the way of the saints was not yet opened while the first tabernacle stood Bristow addeth to the text of his own into soncta or heauen wher the apostle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death resurrection ascension the effect wherof neuertheles was extended no lesse to the fathers of that olde testament then to vs. Thirdly the apostle saith Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place by the bloud of Iesus which hath dedicated that new liuing way for vs through the vayle that is his flesh All which proueth nothing but that there is no entrance into heauen but by Christ which way is comon to all the saintes of God of all ages But Bristow biddeth me conferre the end of my text Heb. 11. with the beginning where he saith they receiued not the promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating I admit it for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies The consummation of which promise perfection of the saints God reserueth vnto one time when we shal all receiue the promise consummation together that they without vs saith he shoulde not be consummate the same reason is of the apostles fathers of the primitiue church vs of the later church them that shal be to the end of the world Now to mine arguments autorities of scripture I reason that seeing they all beleeued in Christ they had euerlasting life entred not into condemnation but passed frō death to life Ioh. 5. To what life saith Bristow but the life or resurrection of their bodies for vntil the last day all the dead are in death O prodigious heretike call you that a passage frō death to life to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years Is God then to this new Saducee the god of the dead not of the liuing yea he saith that life after corporal deth in the new testament lightly euery where signifieth the resurrection of the bodies What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world which shal be interrupted with so long abyding in death 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith he that beleueth in me hath alreadie eternal life if they that are passed out of this world are all in death wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie Limbus patrum or death The second argument is of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike Apoc. 13. To this the beast hath nothing to answere but that it is not said that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world but that all the reprobates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh And because Apoc. 17. the words be whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world by a monstrous construction contrary to the manifest composition and pointing both in the Greeke vulgare Latine to be referred not to the lamb slaine but to the booke of life As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world which is no where else written in the scripture but heere the cause of the trueth he will not haue to be my fonde sense but because his death was preordeined of God and prefigured so long before A substantiall cause by which we may say that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world because his death was so long before ordeined of God and prefigured in the death of Adam The third argument is that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life sayeth that there is peace and that they shall rest in their beddes Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon or hell is prepared of olde for the wicked To this he answereth that Esay speaketh not of his owne time but as a Prophet of the time now since the cōming of Christ who is our peace as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures And what a shamelesse answere is this to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet After a little quarreling against my translatiō the sense wherof he cannot deny he asketh if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine But sir Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe will not onely giue them rest without sense of paine but peace with happinesse and prosperitie Finally he sayeth Topheth or Gehenna was not the onely hell because our Creede and the Scripture sayeth that Christes soule was in hell I answere that hell signifyeth either the place or state of torments for sinnes in the former Caluine whome you slaunder sayth not that Christ was in but in the later when he complained that he was forsaken of God there is not therefore proued by Christes discending into hell any other place or receptacle of soules in hell but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned The fourth argument against Limbus is that Lazarus was carryed by Angels not downe to hell but vp to Abrahams bosome But the riche man being in hell looked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of Bristowe asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to
euerlasting rest of infantes that were not baptized But what saith Bristowe to my reply which is this The same reason serueth as well against the Popish Purgatorie because we finde it not in the holie Scriptures Bristowe asketh whether Saint Augustine doth so reason against it As though that were materiall when the reason will binde one man as wel as another and one matter as wel as another As for his opinion of prayer for the dead as I haue often saide proueth not a thirde place as for the two places De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. cap. 13. 24. the one manifestly corrupted the other iustly suspected I haue spoken to them both alreadie Other Doctors about prayer for the dead I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur That no man can be absolued of the Pope after his death and wherefore then serue the Popes Pardons Bristowe answereth that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion and not for excommunicate persons Verie well yet are you not escaped For where is the Popes commission for pardoning Quodeunque c Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shal be loosed in heauen c. if this be your commission as well for giuing pardoÌ„s as for absoluing excommunicate persons this commission cannot be exercised but vpon the liuing We read saith Gelâ—sius that Christe did raise the dead we reade not that he did absolue them that died in errour If I had pleasure to enterlarde the Doctors sayinges as you haue I should adde that we reade not that Christ gaue pardon to any in Purgatorie And because he alone had power onely this to doe he committed it to Peter the Apostle principally Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shabe loosed also in heauen c. He saith vpon earth for he neuer saide that he was to be absolued which died in his binding Likewise that this authoritie giuen by this texte be it more or lesse is to be exercised onely vpon men liuing on the earth you may read C. 24 q. 2. Quod autem And that no man can be excommunicated or absolued after his death it is shewed by the wordes of the Gospell in which it is said whatsoeuer you shal binde c. he saith vpon the earth not vnder the earth Where I cited out of Cyprian Cont. Demetr Pur. 140. when men are departed from hence there is no place of repentance no effect of satisfaction Here life is either lost or saued Here prouision is made for euerlasting life by the worshipping of the fruite of faith Bristowe chargeth me with clipping because I left out the last periode which is neither to nor fro my purpose Likewise where I said he exhorteth Demetrianus himselfe to repentance which had bene a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians he chargeth me with changing for I should haue said which presently was I changed no worde of Cyprian in saying he had beene and a reasonable man would haue vnderstoode me that he presently was such a one when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance But what is the answere This which is expresly written of Infidells in hell and of baptisme I pretend to be written of the faithfull in Purgatory and of penance after baptisme I answere Cyprian speaketh generally of all men not of Infidels only of al men in this world and not of Infidels in hell Nec quisquam c. Neither let any man be staide either by sinnes or by yeares that he should not come to obteine saluation To him that remaineth still in this worlde no repentance is to late The way is open vnto pardon and to them that seeke and vnderstand the trueth the accesse is easie Finally after he had saide that passage is from death to life the place by me cited he addeth Hanc graiiam This grace Christ bestoweth this gift of his mercie he giueth by subduing death with the trophee of his crosse redeeming the beleeuer with the price of his bloud reconciling man to God his father quickening a mortall man by heauenly regeneration Him if it may be let vs all followe let vs be esteemed by his sacrament and signe he openeth vnto vs the way of life he restoreth vs to Paradise he bringeth vs to the kingdome heauen with him we shall alwayes liue c. These wordes declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one meane of saluation as well for the Gentile to be baptised as for the penitent Christian by the onely mercie of God in Christe obteined in this life without any satisfaction of paine for euer after this life and therefore he saith moreouer That beeing made the sonnes of God by Christ restored by his bloud we shall alwayes reioyce with him We Christians shall be together with Christ glorious blessed of God our father reioycing of perpetuall pleasure alwayes in the sight of God and alwayes giuing thankes to God For he can not be but alwayes ioyfull and glad which when he was guilrie of death is made sure of immortality Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus if he did repent but euen immediately before his death and were baptised that he should enioye the same state of felicitie with all faithfull Christians in perpetuall ioy after death with Christ. In like maner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this worlde while confession may be receiued and satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is acceptable to God which he speaketh generally as if he had saide no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest auaileth to them that are departed To the place of Chrysostome whiche I cited against himselfe Pur. 251. Bristowe after he hath remoued the question from the cause to the person answereth that no friend no iust man shall helpe him that dieth in mortal sinne either committing euil or doing no good I say no more but as I saide before Let it be compared with Chrysostomes other saying the Homilie next before 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter Pur. 242. If thou yet chance c. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead I cited in Psalm 4. Bene c. The Prophet did well to adde on earth for if he be not cleansed here he can not be cleansed there I should haue saide cleane saith Bristowe for though he be not cleane from veniall sinnes he may be cleansed there as also from the temporall debt of his remitted mortall sinnes But he forgetteth the worde of the Psalme out of which Ambrose maketh his note Vt emundet cum in terra that he may cleanse him on earth why was it well added on earth if he might be cleansed after this life There is no cleansing but on earth Where Ambrose was alledged by Allen Pur. 104. to proue that euerie man immediately after his death doth feele that he must looke for in the day of iudgement I saide Purgatorie 105. I maruell wherefore it is brought in if it bee not to
bin dāned for euer c. Which he saith also shal be my reply But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world he maketh his tormentes of minde whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vnto death which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched to be of no force except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ who feared so much bodylie death that many of his seruantes haue ioyfully imbraced and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse and that most lamentable complaint that God had forsaken him were for nothing but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse as Bristow writeth it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine and therefore we must needes acknowledge that he suffered more in the sight of God whose iustice he was to satisfie then he suffered in the sight of men And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me is answered why descendit ad inferos cometh after sepultus because the order of the Symbole is first to shew what suffered before men and then what hesuffered in the sight of God As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sinne c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vs with it then with those other blasphemies that Christ did dispaire in God or blaspheme God or commit some other sinne against God for our redemption which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes For which detestable slaunder if he haue no better ground then he sheweth let him remember that the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule I wil spare to amplifie though I lack no matter albeit that Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders as Iupiters Giantes then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts deriding myknowledge in amplification The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians Antidicomarianites who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians likewise cōdemned thē we to the Heluidians But let vs see his impudent quarels First I say As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ as we thinke it is true so because the scripture hath not reueiled it neither perteineth it vnto vs we make no question of it Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes which trobled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by the scriptures yet saith Bristow you forge a principle of onely scripture in their fauour Surely that principle as it is not forged so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures but within 4. lines afore I am contrary to my selfe where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture If I had to doe with a man of reason as I haue to do with a papist he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vnto saluatiō For otherwise I thinke many things to be true that are not conteined in the scriptures As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit learning honesty thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures but gathered by other reasons yet he saith I might which more honestie haue saide that it may be proued by scripture where she saith Luk. 1. Because I know no man that is saith he because I haue made a vow of virginitie A like matter that she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie although it so proue her vow But if Bristow were condēned or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow out of that place yea or any other place of the scriptures it were all one as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same Another poynt of that dishonor is where I controld Allen for excepting the mother of Christ when he speaketh of sinners which is all one as if he had said Christ was not a sauiour of his mother or that she had no neede of his saluation And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne because he saith against the Pelagians that he would haue no question of her for the honour of our Lord when he speaketh of sinnes For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her to ouercome sinne of all partes which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him 〈…〉 om it is certaine that he had no sin Denat grat 136. It is all one with Bristow to ouercome sinne to be voyde of all sinne What victorie is there without a battel if the flesh in the virgin Marie did not rebel against the spirite what victorie had she by grace But it is plaine Pelagianisme to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous The Pelagian nameth also ipsam etians domini c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour which he saith it is necessarie for godlines that we confesse that she was with out sinne But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will haue no question signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e but had grace to ouercome sinne yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners But Bristow perceiueth that I would not haue so answered seeing I affirme that by the reprehension of Christ Iohn 2. she did offend for he would neuer haue reproued his mother without a cause And said what haue I to do with thee woman except she had intermedled in his office more then of dutie she ought But Bristow would colour his reproofe two wayes one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what to me and thee O woman not vnderstanding the greek phrase which is by those words to refuse to haue to doe with one As the diuels Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What haue we to do with thee Iesus thou sonne of God and not as Bristowe translateth What to vs and thee Iesus c. But because Bristow saith that if Christ should meane that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother yet she were not discharged of error to moue him in a matter which belongeth neither to him nor her He sayth I might doe well to tell him what were those sinnes of hers I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnder colour of her motherly authoritie with matter apperteining to his diuine office of being Christ
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen When you can perswade vs I saye that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe then wil we beleeue you that a figure and the thing figured be all one CAP. XV. The reall preseÌ„ce of Christs bodie is that which setteth his death and life before vs. The eating of common breade saith Sander in answere to the Apologie and drinking of common wine is but a homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ which dyed rose againe and wrought all the myracles in the worlde then is the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ in deede set before the eyes of our faith Is not this an absolute answere to tell vs of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie which as Iustinus saith wee haue learned to bee common breade and wine but the bodie and bloude of Christ that was incarnated for vs. Confessing thus much what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine into his bodie and bloude more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme Tush saith Sander all other wayes of setting the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation If this be true preaching of the death of Christ by which he is euen crucified among vs as S. Paul saith Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing the ministration of baptisme by which we are ingaffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander and no liuely representation But what affinitie saith he hath breade and wine with the death and resurrection of Christ I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death buriall and resurrection of Christ which is not nakedly represented but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme Rom. 6. By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes namely an hystoricall faith which because it is common to true Christians with diuels is not the faith that we come to feede vpon in these diuine mysteries But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort the effecte and fruite of the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ with the which the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie as things corporal can haue with thinges spiritual teaching that the most necessarie and onely sufficient nourishment of our soules is receiued by faith euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himself thou eatest himself See saith Sander whether the Apologie do more truely teach that the signe or token wtout the real presence or the body it selfe present doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely speaking of the Eucharistye Si mortuuâ— Iesus non est Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quantum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria teneamus prâ— nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse If the Iesus hath not dyed as some heretikes affirme whose token and signe is this sacrifice Thou seest how great desire he had that we should alwayes keepe in remeÌ„brance that he hath died for vs. But I know he wil presse the former words thou seest himself c. therfore not a signe without the reall presence But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatioÌ„ if transubstantiatioÌ„ be not that real presence which he holdeth is not And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ Chrysostome telleth vs plainly Quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vinum tradidit when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament he deliuered wine And this saith Chrysostome against theÌ„ that vsed to celebrate with water But to helpe out transuâ—stantiation he bringeth in Damascen a writer out of the compasse of the challeng which saith De ortho fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the bodie of Christ camâ— downe from heauen but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much with the worde of chaunging as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say it is euerie where And therefore aduise your self what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands But Cyrillus saith he teacheth That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ when he cryed out My Lorde and my God So wee touch that flesh when we touch the forme of breade as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the fleshe visiblie These are high poyntes of Metaphysike Master Sander to touch the godhead which is insensible and to touch visiblie or inuisiblie except you meane by touching not visibly to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke which wee see not But howsoeuer you would cloake the matter by leauing out the wordes of Cyril hee saith that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence nay where is your carnall presence become which you grounde vppon touching when he is none otherwise present to be touched then he is present to be seene and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himselfe thou â—atest himselft If Christ be none otherwise eaten then hee is seene and is not seene but by faith it will follow that he is not eaten but by faith And nowe let vs heare Cyrillus beginning one sentence before SaÌ„d was disposed to heare him speak I n Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 Iâ— reigitur sanctae congregationes die octaâ—o in ecclesâ—â—s fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter autem in corpore Prâ—bet enim nobis carneÌ„ suaÌ„ tangendam vâ— firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est verbis ipsius probatur
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
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
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
trueth of that bodie whereof the visible sacrament was a signe token and argument and so vsed by Tertullian againste the Marcionites that likewise denyed the veritie of Christes body Wherefore in this Chapter Sander prooueth nothing lesse then in the title he promiseth CAP. IX That no man possibly can bee condemned for beleeuing the bodie of Christ to bee really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar His title is of no man possibly but his demonstration is a simple poore man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers vpon coulour of Christes almightie power and will pretended in promising that he will giue his fleshe and wordes in saying this is my body As for them that are simplie deceaued they stand or fal to God I will neither iudge of their condemnation nor absolution But such as obstinately defende that error contrarie to their owne conscience as a great number of the Papistes which pretende faith and seeke nothing else but the ouerthrowe of faith and the glorie of God for as much as that error employeth a deniall of the trueth of Christes humanitie and consequentlie the trueth of the resurrection of our bodies which must be made like vnto the glorious bodie of Christ and inferreth manifest Idolatrie in worshipping that for GOD which is a meere creature I see not howe they can escape eternall damnation As for their defence which Sander maketh is friuolous First of the almightie power of God which is to doe whatsoeuer he will and is agreable to his glorie and not whatsoeuer we will imagine He can not therfore make his body to be in many places at once or to bee without dimension of quantitie or to bee inuisible and intangible because hee hath determined of his will to the contrarie in fiue hundreth places of scripture which testifie of the trueth of his humanitie like vnto his bretheren in all poyntes without sinne Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotencie that hee can not doe contrarie to his will which were against his owne glorie It is no infirmitie in God that he cannot lye that hee cannot sinne that he cannot denie himselfe nor doe contrarie to his will glory but an argument of his power wisedome and goodnesse And whereas Sander saith that Christ hath determined his will in saying The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world I answere hee hath determined no such will of giuing his flesh in the Sacrament by these wordes but of giuing his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the worlde which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith not onely in the supper but in baptisme without both the sacraments by faith onely which was eaten of all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ without the eating of which breade of life no mortall creature can bee partaker of eternall life Further where Sander saith that Christ saide This is my bodie and gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragments or peeces whereby he shewed that hee made the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuers places c I answere he declared no will of multiplying his bodie in diuers places at one time by such words or fact For seeing he had so often before testified the truth of his humanity in somuch that he termed himselfe vsually the sonne of man and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for triall of the truth of his resurrection these wordes were not sufficient to teach his disciples that his natural bodie could at one time be visible and inuisible tangible and intangible in locall situation and not in locall situation to be whole in one place and whole in manie places to haue quantitie actually of length bredth and thickenes to haue no quantitie actually of length breadth thicknes these contradictions I say being against nature reasoÌ„ sense his former doctrine and the scriptures touching the trueth of his naturall bodie and his argument taken of the senses after his resuâ—rection coulde not bee perswaded with onely saying This is my bodie for as much as they had hearde him saye manie thinges in like phrase where no like vnderstanding could be imagined and the scripture speaking of the sacraments vseth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacramentes Wherefore there is no doubt but the disciples vnderstood these words figuratiuely sacramentally and spiritually And concerning the fragments and peeces whereof Sander speaketh he is a shamed to call them fragments or peeces of bread as Cyrillus doth of whom he borowed the phrase lest he should acknowledge breade to be any part of the Sacrament But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ concerning transubstantiation of the breade into his bodie which euen the schoolemen affirme cannot be prooued out of the scriptures And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme induceth Christ saying that one of his works cannot be contrarie to another seeing his ascension abiding in heauen and comming from thence to iudgement are contrarie to this imagined presence and those articles are plainely and manifestly set forth to be beleeued howe can these onely foure wordes This is my bodie which may haue another interpretation agreeable to all the sayings and workes of God make such a declaration of the will of Christ as thereby the trueth of his humanitie remaining after it was assumed of the deitie and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon the ascension abyding of Christ in heauen and his comming from thence to iudgement although in words they be not denyed yet are and must be brought in doubt question and vncerteintie The other false bragges of this interpretation vniuersally receiued and alwayes taught and beleeued I omitte with his shameles slaunders of Luthers life and death wherof the one hath beene sufficiently and many times confuted the other is so well knowen and to so manie wise and godly with whom he liued and among whom he dyed that next vnto the autoritie of the scriptures no one thing more discouereth the falshood of the Papists then their impudeÌ„t slanders and lyes maliciously deuised against the true professors of the Gospel The seuenth Booke To the Preface SAnder hauing finished the sixt booke supposed to haue ended his labour but then came forth the B. of Salisburies replie vnto Doctor Hardings booke wherevpon he was moued to answere that article which concerned the reall presence But because the words of both their bookes were too large to bee inserted in this his volume hee hath chosen the pyth of either as hee affirmeth with such fidelitie as Master Iewell should finde no fault with him For my part I was likewise purposed to haue omitted the answere of this appendix partly because Master Iewels defense of the Apologie being set foorth after this booke of Sander the chiefe matters are therein by Master Iewel himselfe wayed and
of scripture as I brought to proue the sinne against the holie Ghost to be irremissible First the place of 1. Iohn 5. he saith is meant of them that be deade and damned in hell as he hath taught vs cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation as false and newe he citeth Augustine in ret li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I holde but afterward he addeth if he end his life in this peruersitie For we must despaire of no man be he neuer so wicked so long as he is in this life Neither is praier made vnwisely for him who is not despaired of Here are two contrarie expositions of one man in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place and not whether better or last pleased the authour of them That no man is to be despaired of while he liueth as it is contrarie to the scripture so to the practise of the Church which refused to pray for Iulianus the apostata and prayed to God against him Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon denounced him to his face to be impious and an apostata and enimie of God Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo lib. 5. cap. 4. The second text Heb. 6. Bristowe expoundeth it of falling through frailtie in persecution of them which can not be renewed by baptisme but the Apostle saith expressely by repentance and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling but of prolapsion or falling cleane away from Christ with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption The terrible denuntiation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristowe faith he speaketh it not to driue them to desperation but to moue them to repentance What if that be graunted that by shewing the daunger of malitious obstinacie which groweth to irremissible wickednes he should admonish them to beware in time as the Apostle doth Heb. 6. Doth it therefore followe that no man sinneth irremissiblie while he liueth Although it is plaine that our sauiour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickednes that nothing could reclay me them or bring them to repētance But Bristow would make me contrarie to my selfe who though in expresse words I count D. Allen his fellowes such as by you Heb. 6. cannot repent yet do exhort them truly to repent c. Pur. 461. But how proueth he that I count Allen and his fellowes such as cannot repent Forsooth because I say they haue sometime beene lightened and tasted of the good gifte of God Why sir are all such come to prolapsion I trow not In deede I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion that are curable Whether Allen were euer a protestant I know not but certaine I am that some of his fellowes haue beene lightned and were protestants of whom I speake and not of him If I say Bristow and his fellowes which are lay-men doe I say Bristow is a lay man This wilfull malicious cauilling Bristow if you take not heede of it in time argueth that you are fallen verie deepe if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasie But this is a cunning cōforter of them that are in desperation which affirmeth that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sinne and blasphemie shall not be remitted then he saith that all other sinne and blasphemie shal be remitted and therfore many one yea and aboue all number may be and is forgiuen the sinne against the holy ghost He meaneth because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiuen But if that condition were to be vnderstoode in them also that sin against the holy ghost what distinction were there for which he should say that blasphemie and sinne shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come Such a sinner hath no remission of sinnes but is guiltie of eternal damnation For that none shal be forgiuen without repentance as euerie man knew without that distinction But Bristow would haue it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgiue the sinne against the holy ghost and so he forgaue one of those Pharisees and he the verie worst of them all namely S. Paule who had bin indeede a Pharisee as he cōfesseth Act. 23. 26. but none of those Pharisees for he knewe not Christ in the flesh 2. Cor 5. yea he had beene a persecuter and a blasphemer as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees for he was an elect vessel of God and his persecution and blasphemie was not of malice or sinne against the holy ghost but of ignorance and blinde zeale of God for he addeth immediatly but I obteined mercie because I did it ignorantly in vnbeleefe As for those Pharisees against whom our Sauiour Christ thundreth that iudgement did blaspheme the holy ghost against their owne conscience and knowledge malitiously attributing vnto the diuell that which they knew to be the finger of God That which I speake out of Samuel Ieremie and Ezekiel Bristow saith is all spoken in one sense of temporall matters to wit of casting Saule from his kingdome and the Iewes into captiuitie But except the persons had bene incurable God would haue beene intreated to giue them repētance to haue continued Saule in his kingdome and the people in their countrie The rule that Ezechiel 33. is vnderstoode of sinnes that are not against the holy ghost as the examples doe plainely declare The 8. poynt is that strange interpretation of the creede a◠he calleth it Christ descended into hell to redeeme vs out of hell by suffering the wrath of God for our sinnes Heb. 5. First Bristow saith there is neuer a word of that article and much lesse of the interpretation thereof in that chapter yet after to proue that to bee prayer which I saide was a complaint as though it might not be be a complayning prayer he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ who in the daies of his flesh with a mightie crie and with teares offered vp prayers and supplications to him that was able to saue him out of death and was heard from his feare or from that he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by this text Bristow would proue that Christ was not forsaken of his father no not corporally although he complayned that he was forsaken as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed when he sayde My God my God why hast thou forsaken me which to him that was God was greater torment of hell then any heart of man can conceiue And therefore Bristow which maketh all to stand in the bodilie death of Christ and raileth at Caluine for shewing how necessarie it was for Christ to suffer in soule as much as in body for the redemption of the whole man doth nothing but cauil slaūder one while fayning that Caluine should make two deathes of Christ another while that he was in feare lest he should haue