for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
more then the Pharisee yes there is saide that â—ee was iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes which hee â—onfessed not trusting in him selfe that hee was â—ighteous although hee ascribed all his vertues to the grace of GOD as the Pharisee did O GOD I thanke thee c. Iumpe with the Papistes Luke 18. But Bristowe asketh me howe I proue that hee which is iuâ—tified may not bee in some debt seeing all the iuâ—tified children of GOD are taught to pray forgiue â—s our debtes I proue it thus Hee that is by GOD â—ustified is accounted for iust But hee that is iuste is â—n no debte for sinne therefore he that is iustified is in â—o debte for sinne That the faithfull are taught to â—raye daylie forgiue vs our debtes it is because they â—inne daylie and by sinne enter into debte and thereâ—ore haue neede of dayly remission to continue iustiâ—ied The Prodigall childe Luke 15. hee saithe is the Gentile receiued by baptisme who if after baptisme he became prodigall hee saith I haue not proued that being receiued by penaunce wee must enioyne him no more punishment then at his other receiuing Beside that he restrayning this parable onely to Gentiles comming first to Baptisme depriueth the faithfull of inestimable comforte hee neither hath any worde in the scripture so to restrayne it and the whole contexte is against him For Saincte Luke sheweth the occasion of the three parables of the loste sheepe of the loste Groate and of the prodigall Childe to haue beene because the Scribes and Pharisees murmured that he receiued the Publicanes and sinners which all were Iewes and circumcised yet fallen from the couenant of God by infinite and notorious sinnes therefore according to right analogie the lost Childe euen as the lost sheepe and lost Groate is euerie penitent sinner the elder brother as the 99. sheepe and 9. groates are the Scribes and Pharisees which through hypocrisy in their owne iudgement are righteous and neede no repentaunce To the 2. debters Luke 7. he answereth that although Christ forgaue them both yet they both had to be forgiuen after according to the proportion of their loue This importeth manifest contradiction he forgaue all yet something was not forgiuen Yea saith Bristowe Marie had much sinnes forgiuen her because she loued much and therefore long after her hartes conuersion and therefore after her first forgiuenesse Christe sayeth Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is a strange kinde of reasoning Christe shewing the cause of Maries great loue to haue bene for that great sinnes were forgiuen her expresseth in voyce that which she before conceiued by faith that her sinnes were forgiuen her Ergo after her first forgiuenes she had need of a second which she procured by loue And yet it is more fonde that in saying to Simon and of Simon the Pharisee To whom lesse is forgiuen he loueth lesse he giueth him to vnderstand that he owed more then he was aware and therefore he should increase as Marie did in penitentiall loue First howe proueth he that Simon was this other detter to whom lesse was forgiuen Secondly admit that he was howe proueth he that he should shewe as great penitentiall loue as Marie seeing his debt was not so great as Maries and therefore needed not so great a proportion of his loue according to his owne heresie of merite Thirdly when Christe sayeth To whom lesse is forgiuen he loueth lesse he speaketh not so much of the quantitie of sinnes but the acknowledging of them greater or lesser For he that confesseth great sinnes to be pardoned acknowledgeth that he is bound to great loue as Marie did the Pharisee who though his sinnes were as great as Maries in GODS sight by meanes of hypocrisie more abhominable yet was so blinded in opinion of his owne righteousnesse that he sawe them not and therefore this loue was as colde as he imagined his sinnes forgiuen to be fewe and small Thus the historie of the sinneful womans great loue proueth nothing that punishment remayneth due to be payed after the debt is forgiuen Whether this woman were Marie Magdalen as Brîstowe calleth her I wil not here dispute Saint Luke giueth her no name Whether Purgatorie follow vpon this last foundation The foundation is ouerthrowen for all sinnes are proued to deserue eternall death and when God pardoneth them he pardoneth them clearely as well the punishment as the guiltinesse for what should he punishe in them that are guiltie of no sinne by his pardon Therefore where I cited Psalm 103. That God hath not dealt with vs according to our sinnes c. Bristow is driuen to his former shift that these wordes are spoken of the Prophete onely for the time of the finall rewarde which I haue confuted before Concerning those that repent at the houre of death I sayde they haue rewarde of eternall life as well as they that repent sooner by authoritie of the parable Matthew 20. of them that came the last houre to worke in the vineyarde Bristow saith I am deceiued because I cannot see any iustice in mercie Yes verily I see the iustice of God fully answered in Christ not in the person that needeth mercie who is pardoned and iustified gratis freely Rom. 3. 11. But the spirite of God sayeth Apoc. 2. that he will giue to euery one of you according to his workes wherevpoÌ„ Bristowe inferreth the God is not alike good to al that he hath once shewed mercie vnto for Christ to all the baptised I aunswere that texte is a threatning to Iesabel them that commit fornication with her if they do not repent from their workes For it foloweth immediately But to you I say and the rest in Thyateiâ—â— that haue not this doctrine and which haue not knowen the deapth of Satan as they say I wil not lay vpon you any other burthen c. although it be true that God rewardeth euery man according to his workes which is in qualitie good or euill not in quantitie as much or as little as they deserue What shall I say that Bristowe bringeth in a varietie of pence contrary to the scope of the parable affirmeth the pence to be wages for the working that also by bargaine So that eternall life is not the gift of God neither are men saued by grace not of workes in his iudgement contrary to the Apostles plaine doctrine Eph. 2. In the conclusion he saith If you can prooue that God will shewe as full mercie also where he findeth not that fulnesse of Christes grace then call vs hardly enimies for not suffering God to shewe mercie to whom he will But where wanteth that fulnesse of Christes grace in any of Gods electe Is it where greatest sinnes be The Apostle answereth where sinne hath abounded grace hath more then abounded Rom. 5. Wherfore the fulnesse of the grace of Christ being extended to the greatest sins what should we doubt that the lesser should not be swallowed vp of it Whether
requireth not the burthen of shirts of haire nor to be shutte vp in the streightes of a little cell neither doth he commaunde vs to sitte in obscure and darke caues This onely is that which is required of vs that we alwayes remember our sinnes He requireth onely compunction of the heart therefore he requireth no workes of satisfaction neither those nor any other Bristow will see nothing but the streight mourning of Monkes The worde onely is so litle for his purpose that he cannot see it And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can Chrysostome saith it is besides Gods commandement To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter I read of his teares I reade not of his satisfaction Bristowe replyeth that he saith immediatly before I finde not what he said I finde that he wept Wherevpon he will gather both confession and satisfaction necessarie I would faine see that collection in a syllogisme Surely if they were both necessarie S. Peter by iudgement of Ambrose lacked two necessarie pointes of repentance which Iudas had and yet obteyned not forgiuenesse But teares saith he are a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction And yet where Ambrose sayeth they obteine pardon Bristowe saith they are not sufficient so that Peter weeping hauing beside his inward contrition a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction had not that which wold serue But Br. leauing this place as obscure referreth vs to a plain place Ad vir Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime is necessary a passing great satisfactioÌ„ wherto I answered before that an heinous offeÌ„ce must be earnestly bewailed if the repentaÌ„ce be not couÌ„terfet Brist saith He doubted not of her repentance to be vnfeined What theÌ„ He exhorteth her to continue her repentance not for satisfaction to God whose iustice caÌ„not be saâ—isfied by mans worke but by her earnest sorrowe to satisfie the Church which was offended by her whoredome The fourth thing is pardons whereof Bristowe speaketh as he doth commonly with wonderfull confusion I saide the olde satisfaction was in respect of the offence vnto the Church and not to satisfie the iustice of God which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enioyned by the Church vpon good consideration might be and often was released by the Church as appeareth by many places of Cyprian which Bristowe citeth and many other but not by the Bishop only and this release or remission was called indulgence or pardon which is no more like to Popish pardons then the creaking of a goose is like the songe of a swanne But as for pardoning of sinne they affirmed that it was proper to God as Ambrose to the virgine Sticke to penance euen to the end of thy life and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day for he deceiueth thee that so promiseth the. For thou that hast in speciall sinned against the Lorde it is meete that of him only thou looke for remedy in the day of iudgement Bristowe saith He did binde her to penance all her life bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand as he bounde the Emperour Theodosius indefinitely and loosed him after eight moneths penance with a pardon Who seeth not quoth Bristow that all this maketh plainly for pardons But Ambrose telleth her not that he would not pardon her but that no man can pardon the offence committed against God and that if the Pope himselfe should promise to pardon her he should but deceiue her And yet the Church might pardon the offence and slander where with they were iustly offended by her whoredome and restore her to the Communion as I doubt not but they did although she should continue her repentance al the daies of her life when Ambrose did binde and loose the Emperor he did only vse the discipline of the Church to bring him to repentance that God might forgiue his sinnes not that he might make satisfaction for the slaughter of 7000. men of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. moneths penance but after such time seeing him to be sorrowfull in deede receiued him againe into the communion The place of Cyprian In Sermon de Lapsis is very cleare to shewe that God and not man forgiueth the sinnes Let no man deceiue himselfe let no man beguile himselfe only our Lord can giue mercy only he can graunt pardon to sinnes as beeing committed against him who hath borne our sinnes who hath suffered sorrow for vs whom God hath deliuered for our sinnes Man cannot be greater then God neither can the seruant by his indulgence remitt or â—orgiue that which by so greate offence is committed against the Lorde least this offence also be added to him that is fallen if he knowe not that it is foreshewed Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man Our Lorde must be entreated our Lorde must be pacified with our satisfaction which saith he doth denie that man that denieth him Against this so plaine a place Bristowe cauelleth that he speaketh to impenitents that trusted also in laie mens pardons which is false for they were not altogether impenitent but not sufficiently repentant neither did they trust in laie mens pardons but without dewe repentance tried made hast to be reconciled by entreaty of the Martyrs yet with the hurtfull facility of the priests whereof Cyprian complaineth Sic oportet Dei Sacerdotem So it behoueth the priest of God not to deceiue with the deceiuable yeâ—lding but to prouide with wholesome remedies As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristowe would haue to be noted were not pardons of sinnes but release of time of separation enioined by the Church to shewe repentance for their sinnes as I declared before Which is euen as auncient as the Gospell whereas popish pardons Apoena culpa are of a much newer stampe and contrary to the auncient custome in the giuers for they were geuen by the whole Church in the persons for they were giuen to men a liue only in the time for they were giuen but of a short time of penance enioyned in this life and not of so many thousand yeares c. in the thing released for they were neither pardons of punishment nor of sinne dewe to Gods iustice but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church when the Church was otherwise satisfied 7 Of Purgatorie of the Canonicall memento of oblations of sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church Bristowe chargeth me to vse the arguments from mens authoritie negatiuely which I my selfe confesse to be naught but he mistaketh the matter I saide the order of prayers and administration of the holie mysteries described by Iustinus and Tertullian doe sufficiently declare what was the vsage of the Christians in those purer times in which no mention beeing made of oblations and sacrifice for the deade it is certaine there was none vsed not onely because there is no mention but because those two
are sanctified you are iustified by the name of our Lord Iesus and by the spirit of our God By which he plainely sheweth that although they were baptized long before and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme yet the cleannesse of their washing the holinesse of their sanctification the righteousnesse of their iustification they retained still and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end So that while Bristowe as he doth alwaies chargeth me with ignorance not knowing what is meant by their making perfect he incurreth great forgetfulnesse euen of the Apostles words where he expouÌ„deth which are not onely he hath made perfect but he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme which no logike can proue yet it followeth that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme are made perfect not for a moment as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach from which perfection they fall immediatlie and must recouer it by masses and as Bristowe saith by penance c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered hath made perfect for euer all those that are sanctified That the purpose of the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth let him beleeue that can thinke the greatest part of his disputation for the abolishing of all ceremonies and sacrifices of the lawe to be idle and beside his purpose Likewise that if they fall he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme but remedie he telleth them none Verily there is no remedie for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vnto themseues by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite that he telleth no remedie by repentance from particular faulles and daylie offences when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ Hebrews 10. verse 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance verse 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vs to repentance Verses 5. 6. 7. c. But I shewe great ignorance where I conclude that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse No but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer from the onely once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to haue many ministers and many ministeries as it were conduites to deriue his purchase his redemption to his people In deede if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vnto all his elect he had neede of many conduites such as you speake of for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man but the vertue of the Holie Ghost The ministerie of man is such as man can execute that is by the worde audible and visible to speake to the eares and eyes of men and beeing â—â—iâ—red vp by the holy spirite to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God But you thinke to auoyde exclamation if you ascribe nothing to any man nor any thing but from that Priest and from that sacrifice as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice and bestowe it vpon any man or thing without commission yea against commaundement and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice which being once offered neede noe more to be repeated The scriptures thus examined he commeth to the doctors And first to Augustine or rather Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. 292. to proue that the olde doctors vsinge the name of sacrifice ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ because he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and wine Bristowe replieth that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body bloode of Christ wherein as it is cited by him so is it answered by me cap. 6. of this booke Secondly where he saith In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing commemoration c. Bristow replieth that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euideÌ„tly shewed what is giuen for vs he is announced alreadie killed But because this is nothing to the purpose he compareth it to the martyrdomes of Peter Paule commemorated vpon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades there seene and visited A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome so many Churches of Peter and Paule as haue presently or haue had in times past reliques of their bones were greatly deceiued For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome his nether iawe with his bearde is at Poyters and many of both their bones at Triers Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua where it was tried to be a good pumice stone The second doctor is August de ciui dei lib. 22. cap. 10. saying the martyrs are that body which is offered in sacrifice whereof I conclude that it is not the naturall body of Christ but his mysticall body which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Bristowe answereth that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natuâ—ll body But Augustine neuer saith that the naturall body of Christ is offered but expressing what body is offered sheweth that the mysticall body is offered Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body in offering whereof for his Church he offered his Church to God with it But how proueth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church which before he had purged by his sacrifice he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vnto God The third doctor is Tertullian which saith that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded Bristow saith That in the name of that prayer he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vnto vs after the gospell Dominus vobiscuÌ„ oremus let vs pray immediatly goeth to the bread and wine c. You may thinke I iest they be the very words of Bristow and his onely answere Yea but there be reasons of this saying Because that pure
saith The third Councel of Carthage did define that it is vnlawfull to pray to God the Some and GOD the holy Ghost The Councel of Carthage by that decree denied neither the person nor office of Christ nor of the holy Ghost therefore they held the foundation 49 Here cap. 8. he saith that the iust of the olde Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death but to heauen immediatly Contra The fierie and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise was taken away by the death of Christ when he opened Paradise yea the kingdome of heauen whereof Paradise was but a sacrament vnto all beleeuers so that the penitent theese had passage into Paradise The vertue of Christes death extendeth to the old fathers for their saluation as much as vnto vs yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdome of heauen was the death of Christ by Gods ordinance appointed to worke righteousnesse for all the elect as well before the time of his suffering as since 50 Who so denieth the authoritie of the holy scriptures thereby bewraieth him selfe to be an heretike Contra I say not this here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretike to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames. As Martine Luther and Illyricus for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing My words be not alledged truely in neither of both propositions In the former they are these I will not gainesay but whoso denieth c. I doe not alwaies affirme that I will not gainesay I may be in doubt But to graunt that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint Iames to be a counterfet was not accounted an heretike Shall other mens account be ioyned to mine affirmation to charge me with contradiction Againe the former proposition Who so denieth c. If it be affirmed must be vnderstoode of such as denie the scriptures which are once receiued generally because they are contrary to his opinion If he meane the contradiction to be for that I say I will not excuse Martine and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint Iames for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing I must tell him that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them neither is foolish curiosity like by heresie Last of al where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to auoide a shameful absurditie ensuing of his affirmation he plaieth his old parts first in falsifying my words where I say to reduce he saith to redeeme secondly he saith that Allen speaketh of him that nowe leadeth a godly life but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance or satisfaction of his lothsome life past The very words of Allen be these This our aduersarie Math. 5. here signifieth our brother which hath iust quarell against vs in iudgemēt for that we would not giue eare vnto him sharply admonishing vs of our faults being therefore an aduersary to our vices and fleshly conuersation In which sort to vs that are flesh and bloud and ready to euill from our youth all be aduersaries that preach Christ the amendment of licentious maners repentance of our lothsome life past or else vse against vs the rod of correction and bodily punishment that our soules may be saued in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kinde of aduersary Christ counselleth and commandeth vs for our great good to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitorie life least all these meanes which he wrought to reduce vs to the perfection of a Christian godly life be as it were a witnesse of our contempt and him selfe our accuser before the Iudge that shall so iustly reward euerie man according to his deedes that is Christe him selfe to whome the father hath giuen all iudgement Nowe the wordes in which I reproue this absurditie of Allen are these But before we goe any further let vs see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before There we were told that Purgatorie serueth but for veniall sinnes or else for such mortall sinnes as by forgiuenesse in this life obtained are made veniall trespasses But here not onely vices and fleshly conuersation but also contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our lothsome life past c. are saide to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatorie to the vttermost farthing then the which no vice is more mortall nor further from forgiuenesse For he that not onely leadeth a lothsome life but also contemneth all those meanes that Christ hath wrought to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life I vse his owne wordes howe can he haue remission of his sinnes in this life and yet Maister Allen dare promise him that the tolleration of bandes in the prison of Purgatorie shall recompence his debt and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ. The twelfth Chapter A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke that they which delight in such a Gardiner may see his handie worke The first flower is that I say Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onely by the high Priest once in the yeare But Bristowe saith that sacrifice propitiatorie and for sinne are all one which sacrifice for sinne was offered not onely once in the yeare in the seast of expiation but also in many other feast dayes ordinarily and extraordinarily when so euer any occasion was ministred c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance or his malice Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie vnto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death Heb. 9 with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne saying they are all one When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie that the high Priest that day onely entreth into the holiest place that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel for all their sinnes once a yeare Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation of this principall sacrifice which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onely true sacrifice propitiatorie which our Sauiour Christ offered on the crosse once for al which proportion is obserued by the Apostle Heb 9. ver 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. c. Heb. 10. ver 11. 12. But where Bristow saith beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice Fulke findeth none but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe he affirmeth that which was neither said of me nor is truely collected of him For I saide that Cyprian in these termes sacrifice priest
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
Christ left vs not the best token of remembrance of his death because he is not seene with the print of his wounds But we must esteeme the best remembrance according to his wisedome that hath ordained it who in all respects no doubt hath appoinâ—ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith Yet in Sanders example or any that hee can deuise a remembrance will alwayes differ from the thing remeÌ„bred as the scarie and the fighting are not all one so the remembrance of Christ crucified and Christ crucified himselfe are not all one Neither must Sander baffuâ— vs with the remembrance of an action onely for wee are to remember the person with his benifites in or for the remembrance of me saith Christ vntill he come saith Paul That a thing may be present which is not seene as to a blinde man Sander needed not to proue but that a thing may be both absent and present in the same substance visibly or inuisibly that is the matter which would require Sander to shewe his witte in giuing vs either a reason or an experience But the reall presence of Christ saith he causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification which as Basil affirmeth is a peece of the remembrance whereas in eating and drinking breade and wine Christe is so remembred that sinnes be neither confessed nor amendement minded nor faith exercised nor charitie vsed as nowe a daies in England it is handled by meanes of the newe preachers What fruitfull remembrance of Christes death the popish doctrine doth worke wee lament to see the remanents yet in diuerse places where the people are not taught that spend their time as they were wont to doe in poperie when they had receiued their maker as they were taught to speake Contrariwise where true doctrine and good discipline haue preuailed enuie her selfe may see examples sufficient to confute the shamelesse slaunders of Sander As for the glorious monument of the Masse which Sander describeth to shewe what remembrance of Christ is made therein he doeth well to compare it to a sepulchre which hath outwardly goodly painting carning but inwardly is ful of rotten bones corruptioÌ„ As good a shewing as that and better too may be made vpon a stage with puppets For what doctrine is there in the masse for the comfort of an afflicted conscience but dumbe shewes and idle ceremonies in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselues cannot agree in which if there were any profitable doctrine it were hidde from the people as it were with the grauestone of an vnknowen tongue But that which of all other is worst what remembrance of Christes death and sacrifice call you that which sacrilegiously challengeth vnto it selfe that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ But Sander hauing once entred into the allegorie of a sepulchre cannot so lightlie leaue it but teacheth that Christ hauing ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre woulde not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his bodie lying therein To this I answere that sepulchres are to laye in deade carcases but Christ is risen from death and ascended into heauen hauing left his sacraments as monuments of him that was deade but nowe liueth eternally not as graues wherein his deade bodie still shoulde remaine But Chrysostome is charged to call Christes bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase because it is present after the same rate as it was deade in the sepulchre not without life but without sensible mouing as Epiphanius hath noted I answere hee doth impudently charge Chrysostome to render that reason why hee calleth Christes bodie a carcase in 1. Corint Homil. 24. because hee is present without sensible moouing For there is no such thing in that homily although there bee some excessiue and hyperbolicall speaches as that Christ suffereth to bee broken in the Sacrament which was not broken on the crosse And euen as false it is that hee affirmeth of Epiphanius for hee saith not that Christ is without sensible moouing But speaking of the sacramentall bread Hoc â—st rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc hoc This thing is of rounde shape and insensible as concerning power And yet by grace he woulde say This is mine This and this Epiph. Ancor But there followeth a substantiall reason of the Martyrs which haue left their bodies behinde them for our comfort or else some thing equiualent as Manna â—n the tombe of Saint Iohn as the fable of Abdias sheweth Therefore Christ woulde not bee inferiour to them in leauing his bodie But Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is profitable for vs that hee departe from the worlde in his humanitie to prepare vs a place in heauen and to supplie his bodily presence most comfortablie with the presence of his holy spirite Ioan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for vs that Christ hath carried his bodie into heauen and placed vs in heauen with him Ephe. 2. sending vnto vs his holy spirite with all profitable graces from heauen Origen is cited Homi. 13 in Leuitic Si respicias c. If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lorde saide Doe this in the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely remembrance which may make GOD mercifull to men Marke saith Sander this propitiatorie kinde of remembrance Naye marke the treacherie of Sander that cutting off a sentence by the middle applyeth the conclusion to the latter parte onely which of the author is meant of the whole matter together For Origen shewing the insufficiencie of the shewebreade to make propitiation thus writeth Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem inuenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum Si redeâ—s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit dat huic mundo vitam illum panem propositionis quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus deum But if these thinges namely the ceremonie of the shewe breade bee referred to the greatnesse of the mysterie thou shalt finde that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen and giueth life to this worlde I say that shewebread which God hath set forth to be propitiation through faith in his bloode and if thou looke vnto that commemoration of which our Lorde saith doe this for the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely commemoration that maketh God mercifull to men Nowe marke this propitiatory kinde of remembrance and you shall finde it to bee neither the masse nor the communion but the ceremonie of shewebreade noâ— barely considered but with faith applied vnto Christe whom it
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
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
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in