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
I haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places Where I saide it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body or whether Christ haue any more bodies It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church but I pardon Bristowes ignorance and answere him that the sacrament is neither his naturall nor his mysticall body in proper speeche But secundum quendam modum as Aug. saith after a certain manner both And I read in Theodoret of a third body which the sacrament is De typico symbolicoque corpore a typicall or sacramentall body The place of Augustine in Psalm 58. with the cauillation of Adoration which Bristowe maketh is examined in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander Lib. 6. Cap. 2. The place of Augustine which I translated worde for worde and faithfully gaue the sense thereof as euerie man may see that readeth it Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth setting the carte before the horse in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation speaking of signes namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament Sed quia haec c. But because these thinges are knowen to men because they are done by men they may haue honour as religious things but wonder as miracles they cannot haue Whereof if he had known the carnal presence change of the bread such as the papistes speake of he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature which they are constrained to faine although no man can see them wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere Lib. 2. Cap. 4â— And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation saith Bristowe because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter before the last councell of Trent you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. â—2 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 6 About the sacrament of penance Absolution About the sacrament of penance the Popish Church saith foure thinges first that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away but one houres torment in Purgatorie as the master of the sentences teacheth is not taken away therby and Allen confesseth Bristowe saith it auaileth to take away the torments of hell But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to Gods ministers for absolution giueth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christes office in earth both for pardoning and punishing of sinne that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bristowe and himselfe and left naked in this place as almost in all places by Bristowe who would seeme to take vpon him his defence The second thing is temporall debt remaining after absolution Touching this matter I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron that they were signes of things to come not punishments of Gods displeasure Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristowe complayneth of my synceritie and rehearseth the wordes before When it is said to them that they should be gathered to their people It is manifest that they be not in the wrath of God which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie Thereby it is manifest that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come not punishments of Gods indignation What want of synceritie is here except there be so great difference betweene indignation and displeasure But Bristowe cauilleth of the wrath that separateth for euer as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time Yet the scripture presseth where God saide you shall die because you did not beleeue me This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution wherof the question is but a fatherly correction to them and an example vnto other Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise then the punishment was that they should not enter into the earthly possession Likewise I reported that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc mer. ac rem Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after â—his adultery remitted was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge Bristowe asketh if it be no punishment because it is a scourge yes verily and whether it be not for sinne yes truly But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remaining after absolution when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement For I chastice not my childe that his punishment should satisfie any part of his fault but to keepe him in humility and feare for committing the like and for example to the rest of my family as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians shewing why death that came in by sinne stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme that they owe nothing neither eternally nor temporally for them if death in such be any temporall debt remaining after absolution when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment Bristow saith he speaketh of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe Allen of forgiuenesse in penance But he may not creepe out at that hole it is too straight for him Chrysostome speaketh generally wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse there is no punishment yea he saith Vbi gratia ibi venia where grace is there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse and where there is forgiuenesse there shal be no punishment neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word either of Iewe or Baptisme but of all Christians escaping by grace the wrath which the lawe worketh and beeing made heires of the promise by faith The third thing is satisfaction against which Bristow saith I alledged Chrysostome and Ambrose so fondly that the wordes which I alledge will declare Chrysost. De Compunct Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit c. God
you quoted you needed not to haue made a question whether this opiniō were Montanisme or no. But when you can saye nothing against this assertion your selfe you would make me vncertein of it and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine because in one place before I come to the found proofe of it I say it is a probable coniecture And doeth it followe therefore that I doubt of it because I offer a probable coniecture to other mens vnderstanding before by order of the discourse I am brought to the manifest probation of it The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulnesse shewe your ordinarie manner of collections And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought but that the Montanistes added prayers for the spirites of them that were dead c. Purg. 417. What vncerteintie is of that matter whereof it is not otherwise to be thought Againe Finally it appeareth that the faithfull in Tertullians time allowed no prayers for the dead Pur. 419. Call you that doubtfull which appeareth by plaine demonstration before pag. 417 But for all your fine frumpe in the margent all in Tertulian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not mention it is a probable coniecture that prayer for the dead whereof Tertullian speaketh was vsed onely in the conuenticles of Montanistes because Cyprian which long after liued in Carthage in all his workes maketh no mention of prayers for the dead But I weene Cyprian maketh expresse mention of prayers for the dead by my confession as Bristowe would haue men thinke because I saye of one place alledged by Allen that it hath some couler for Purgatorie which by flowe of arguments I easely washe of that I neede not sticke in the lyme as Bristowe sayeth I doe but howe I am fastened therein he sayeth neuer a worde Oblations for the dead I sayde that oblations for the dead although at the first they were but of thankesgiuing were taken of the Gentiles as appeareth by Tertulliā who counteth them of one originall or beginning with oblations for the birth dayes falsely fathering them vpon tradition of the Apostles as he doth other vanities in the same place whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus a Papist affirming that by the Canons of the Nicen councell and other councels which he had seene in librarijs they were abrogated and taken away Bristowe sayeth he is but a poore antiquarie which knoweth not that Natalitia in olde time were as they nowe are the dayes of Martyrs sufferings And yet he can name neuer an olde writer iustly that calleth them natalitia He nameth in deede Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs What print he followeth I knowe not but my booke hath natalibus and not natalitijs betweene which wordes there is some difference As for Martyrologies whether hee sendeth vs I knowe none of such antiquitie that they may be iudges in this case Tullie is a better witnesse what natalitia being a substantiue in olde time did signifie namely the feasts that were kept for the ioye of mens birthdaye in Ant. Hodie non descendit Antonius Cur Dat natalitia in hortis Antonie commeth not downe to day Why so He keepeth the feaste of his birthdaye in his garden Wherefore Pamelius as great an antiquarie as you make him vniustly reproueth Rhenanus for vnderstanding natalitia in Tertullian to be feastes of the birthdayes vsed after the example of the Gentiles The places you cite out of Cyprian speake neither of natales nor natalitia but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemoration or remembrance of the Martyrs sufferings which could be none other but sacrifices of thankesgiuing according to your owne doctrine Wherefore you shewe nothing to the contrary but that Tertullian vsing the worde natalitia vnderstandeth it for feastes of the birthdaye and not of the death of Martyrs And beside the authoritie of Rhenanus and Tully for the signification of the worde natalitia I oppose against you these reasons First that he addeth not the name of Martyrs as all they that vse natalitia or natales for the daye of their departure but sayeth generally pro natalitijs Secondly that he spake immediatly before of oblations pro defunctis for the dead which you vnderstande for all faithfull departed out of the worlde therefore pro natalitijs signifyeth the oblation for the birth of all Christians come into the worlde Thirdly seeing he had before named oblations for the dead it were absurde to vnderstand pro natalitijs for the dead also without any more explication Fourthly if natalitia should signifie the feastes of the death of Martyrs as you say it will followe also which I do vrge of the place that oblations pro defunctis for the dead were but oblations of thankesgiuing as those for the death of Martyrs which are conteined in one worde or phrase As for that you adde out of Origen in Iob. lib 3. Wee celebrate not the daye of birth c. But the daye of death sheweth the custome of the Greeke Church and not of the Latine and their celebrating of their daye of birth with ioye and thankesgiuing as the daye of the beginning of felicitie and ende of all sorrowes vnto the deade cleane ouerthroweth your opinion of Purgatorie and prayer for the dead as in his time not yet entred into the Greeke Church Beside that he speaketh of the death of all men and not of Martyrs onely as you violently would wrest him Beeres to carry home the corpses He maketh a foolish quarell vppon my saying that George of Alexandria inuented beeres for lucres sake as the Papistes their bearing clothes and other toyes for funerall pompe And first he sayeth that George did not inuent beeres For Epiphanius sayeth he deuised to make the number of them certeine and without those that he ordeined no corps to be buryed and all for lucres sake Ep. H. 76. I neuer thought that they carryed dead men on their neckes like beastes to the graue before Georges dayes and therefore they had some kinde of comely carriage for them But I sayed truely that George inuented peculiar beeres for lucres sake as the Papistes vse their bearing clothes and like stuffe Secondly he sayeth I commend such ceremonies as are conuenient for laying vp of the corps I do so But superstitious beereclothes and other ceremonies of poperie so dearly payde for are neither needfull nor conuenient Againe he asketh whether I thinke it much that the Church should reape their carnalia to whome shee soweth spiritualia No verily but I could neuer learn out of the scriptures that bearing cloathes crosses candels torches c. were such spiritualia as the ministers of the Church ought to sowe Last of all where he asketh whether I would prouide a beere and bearing cloathes against I be buryed rather then to paye my dueties to
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
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
in Christ the workes of one may helpe another I saide Purg. 198. I haue learned in the scripture that there is no name giuen vnder heauen by whiche they may be helped which are not helped by Christes death Act. 4. Bristowe asketh whether I haue learned that they which are helped by the death of Christe can not through his grace helpe and be holpen one of an other To whom I aunswere as I saide before to Allen I learne in scripture that the bloud of Christe purgeth vs from all sinne Iohn 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sinnes by the bloud of Christe as the Papistes affirme them to be which haue neede of other purgation I haue not learned that they can haue any helpe elsewhere Or if you say the bloud of Christ hâ—th purged them from all sinne why doe you invent another purgatory to purge them which is not the bloud of Christ for fierie torments according to Gods iustice are not the bloud of Christ shed for our redemption by which men are iustified freely Rom. 3. through which we haue remission of our sinnes through the riches of his grace Eph. 1. Another reason of mine is grounded vpon Allens wordes which saith that they which are in purgatory caÌ„ not by any motion of minde attaine more mercie then their life past deserued Whereof I inferre that their faith being a notable motion of the minde cannot profite them except the merites of other men should profite them without faith the Scripture saying that without faith it is not possible to please God Bristowe icsting at these iron conclusions letteth the argument stand and denyeth the latter conclusion affirming that by their faith they are in case to be profited by other mens workes which if it be true then is Allens conclusion false that they can not profite them selues by any motion of minde whereon it will followe that they cannot profite them selues by beleeuing that other mens workes may helpe them beeing destitute of their owne They cannot atteine mercie by any motion of minde Ergo not by faith Fulkes common argument of the Omnisufficiencie of Christes passion As though I defended the onely omnipotencie of Christes passion able to purge al sinnes and not the omnisufficiencie hauing satisfied for our sinns first he replyeth that an Origenist might likewise say The omnisufficiencie of Christes passion cannot stande with hell No sir for against him is not onely the wil of Christ but his Act also past hauing sufficiently onely for his elect which satisfaction he communicateth vnto them not in respecte of their workes but according to his grace whiche can abide no workes to ioyne with it in merite but onely faith in receiuing confirmed by the sacramentes in the persons of all them that heare his word and in them that cannot heare only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it so that no degrees proportions meanes or instruments wherof Bristow babbleth can make any merite to detract from Christs death the most plentiful free grace of satisfactioÌ„ for all our sins coÌ„mitted either before baptisme or after For this purpose I cited 1. Iohn 2. Pur. 42. to proue that if any man sinne after baptisme Iesus Christ is our Advocate with the father and the propitiation for our sinnes Bristow answereth That is true But that in playing the Advocate for our sinnes after baptisme he requestâ—th the like equal grace as he did in baptisme for sinnes afore baptisme where haue you that If you make Christes advocation a playing matter I will take no charge of you But to let passe your vnreuerent phrase what doe you ascribe vnto him in his office of advocate but onely to be a requester as euery common Saint is counted with you But you must vnderstande that the office of an Advocate or patrone is to pleade for his clientes and not to require only and what hath he to pleade for vs against the debte of our sins either before or after baptism but his owne satisfaction in his death suffering And therefore euen that which you aske where I haue iâ— I haue euen in the very same words that he requesteth as an advocate for our sins after baptisme the like and equall grace as he did in Baptisme for sinns afore baptisme For there I finde him a propitiation for our sinnes committed after baptisme which word I maruel your blind heresie could not see whereof I reason thus The same propitiation as course of grace working after baptisme that was in or before baptisme must haue equall effectes of grace But Christ is the same propitiation after Baptisme that he was in it or before Ergo he must haue the same effectes of grace working the satisfaction of our sinnes euen at the full Where I alledge Purg. 9â— that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all our sins 1. Ioh. 1. Bristowe answereth It is taken out of the same place and haâ—h the same answere to wit that his bloud doth worke more graciously in the sacrament of baptisme then in the sacrament of penance Of peâ—ance being a sacrament I wil not here dispute but folâ—owe the principall matter in controuersie whether all â—innes of the repentant after baptisme be as clearly purged as they were in baptisme by the bloud of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argumeÌ„t doth â—ufficiently proue it yet euen this very place is manifestâ—y to be vnderstood of the bloud of Christ purging all our sinnes committed after baptisme as well as before The bloud of Christ saith S. Iohn purgeth vs that is me you baptized Christians I doubt not of al sinne which if we say we haue not we deceiue our selues and the trueth is not in vs. The worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth make pure and cleane and so is the vulgar latine emundat Againe he saith in the same place if we confesse our sins â—e is faithful and iust that he may forgiue vs our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquitie If the bloud of Christ in which we haue forgiuenesse doeth purge vs from all our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquiâ—ie whensoeuer we acknowledge them with hartie repentance what place is left for any other purging or clensing of that which the bloud of Christ and the mercie of God hath made pure and cleane That I cite out of S. Iohn being washed by Christ we are throughly cleane Iohn 13. out of Esay Although our sinnes were as red as scarlet they are made as white as snowe He answereth these places are euident of baptisme And therefore he admitteth that I sayd of them so clensed that they are made capable immediatly of the heauenly inheritance But why I pray you are they euident of baptisme because there is mention of washing in both places Is there no washing but in baptisme At least wise will you saye that the Prophet Esay preaching to the people of his age when hee
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
olde Fathers in their Apologies declare whatsoeuer was done in their assemblies As for oblations for the dead that Tertullian speaketh of cannot be proued to haue beene vsed at the communion but rather at the buriall of the dead But Arnobius saith Bristow about the very same time as a witnes to the contrarie complayning that the connenticle houses of the Christians were pulled downe by the Paganes in which God is prayed vnto peace pardon is asked for al men for the Magistrates for friends for enemies for the liuing and for the dead Such a saying there is in Arnobius Lib. 4. Con. gra I confesse but how proueth Bristowe that he was about the time of Iustinus or Tertullian when he confesseth it was 300 yeares since Christians were named Lib. 1 and vnder Dioclesian he florished saieth Hierome which was sixe or seuen score yeres after Tertullian the later of the two who florished vnder Seuerus The olde liturgie of the Greeke Church in Epiphanius time had a memorie of the dead but seeing it was an oblation for the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles c. in the first institution thereof it could be but an offering of thankes giuing although Epiphanius expounded it after the errour of this time to be a prayer for the sinner a separation of Christ from the order of men This is the effect of that I saide Bristowe saith I am deceiued by thinking it is but one memorie whereof Epiphanius speaketh and sendeth me to the countefeit liturgies of Saint Iames Chrysostome and Basil which were written long after their age according as well to the error of the time in which they were writtē as in some expressing the name of the Emperour and Bishop in whose time they were written Also he sendeth me to diuers places of S. Augustine but which I knowe not for the place Encherid C. 110. Dulci q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed which he saith for the very good are thankesgiuing for them that were not very ill asking of mercie for the verie ill no helpe but a comfort of the liuing Chrysostome also speaketh of a generall memorie of all that were departed instituted by the Apostles Ad Philip. hom 3. in which if there had bene an expresse forme of prayer for the dead he needed not of that memorie to haue proued prayer to be profitable to the dead The place of Origen he mangleth euen as his Maister Allen doth but he more vsually suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together without preiudice of his interlacing In Iob lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth louing but one life and not hoping for any other after this But now doe we not celebrate the day of natiuitie seeing it is the entrance of sorowes tēptations but we celebrate the day of death as that which is the putting away of al sorowes the escaping of al tēptations We celebrate the day of death because they doe not die that seeme to die Therfore also do we make memories of the Saints deuoutly kepe the memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith as much reioycing in their rest as desiring also for our selues a godly finishing in faith So therfore we do not celebrate the day of natiuitie because they which die shall liue perpetually And thus we celebrate it calling together the deuoute men with the Priestes the faithfull with the Cleargie inuiting also the needie and poore filling the fatherlesse and widowes with foode that our festiuitie may be done in remembrance of the rest which is vnto the soules departed whose memorie we celebrate and may be made of vs a sauour of sweetenesse in the sight of the eternal God First concerning my translation Bristowe will haue Religiosos to signifie Monkes as though none were deuout but they or as though the Church in Origens time were so full of Monkes as it was afterward Secondly he saith that death is a putting away of the sorowes of this life only where Origen saith of all and it were small cause of reioysing to put off the small sorrowes of this life if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatorie Againe the rest of the dead he will haue to be onely of their bodies That were a poore refrigerium if their soules should frie in Purgatorie The sauour of sweetenesse he wil not haue to be a sacrifice of thankesgiuing but a worke meritorious as though it was a worke meritorious that Noe offered cleane beastes after the floode when the text saith the Lorde smelled a sweete sauour Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thankesgiuing for his deliueraunce The like ignorance he saith I shewe to thinke that memorie for one cannot be a prayer for him As S. Paule to the Colloss Remember my giues and to the Hebrues Remember them that are in giues c. But where did I say so ignorantly that prayer may not be ioyned with remembrance For I trust Bristow is not so brutish to say that all memorie is a prayer But how skilfull is he to compare the memorie of imprisonment which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned with the memorie of rest which beeing obteined what should we pray for As for the wordes in S. Iames his Masse which was written by some Sir Iames many hundreth yeares after Origens death I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude vnto them Where Cyprian saith that Victor deserued not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests I shewed by diuerse good reasons that he meaneth not of prayer for him but such as was of thankesgiuing for the dead and for the like godly departure of the faithfull liuing For his offence in making a Clarke executor was not to be punished with eternall torments wherto Bristow answereth by telling of three things done in their Masse which he saith were done in Cyprians time but that is the matter in controuersie my reasons alledged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Councells at once the Councell of Carthage the 4 Cap. 95. the Councell of Vase which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the deade which they had bequeathed to the vse of the poore Allen saith to excommunicate them that hinder the oblations for the deade Now commeth Bristowe and saith it is but meere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the deade oblations for the deade because Cyprian saith there should be no offering for Victor I haue shewed Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thankesgiuing and this discipline was not to cutt him from the Church but an admonition to other As for the other Councells of Toledo 11. Bracharense with this of Carthage and Vase I haue answered Pur. 426. against which Bristowe here saith nothing but repeateth them with his vsuall interlardings The Councell Bracharense which I twise promised to shewe
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
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
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
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
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
figuratiuely because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing vntil it be plainly vnderstanded This I denie for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing which the speaker meaneth although the hearer vnderstand it not at all Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely was easily vnderstood of all his hearers which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches But Sander replyeth that the Apostles were simple men Idiots and vnderstood not the scriptures therefore they could not vnderstand how the signe might be called by the name of the thing I answere although they were simple vnlearned men in deede and such as vnderstood not the scriptures in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office as was laid vpon them yet Sander doth them too much wrong to make them or any godly person of that time so ignorant in the scriptures that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament considering they were circumcised did celebrate the Passeouer euery yere the verie name wherof must needes teach them howe the signe may be called by the thing signified And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous foolish that Sander prateth of the true first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ This cupp is the newe Testament What verifying of contradictories what diuers soundings what true tokens what things present O great diuinitie of Popish doctors But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud if it be euident saith he it is quickly vnderstood Call women and children and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make Nay rather call Turkes Sarazens and aske the question if it must be euident to them vnto whome the mysterie is not reuealed The token is euident to them that are instructed not to such as neuer heard of it as belike where Sander hath to do women and children are But God be thanked women and children instructed in the Church of Christ can tell him howe euident a token it is of their spirituall feeding on the bodie and bloud of Christ. But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance as he termeth it Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen c. where as much is giuen as is signified by the wordes If this be true all cases reserued both episcopall and Papall are in case to bee forgiuen by euery priest of the lowest degree But here the Apologie which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance is charged to haue falsified the wordes of Christ saying they are meant whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe yet doeth it not falsifie them except Sander will saye that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification Howe Christes wordes are to be taken as Sander will not dispute in this place so neither will I stande here to discusse But this is a bolde determination of him that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall wordes of a Sacrament cannot be vnproper For the nature of the thing doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes If this doctorall determination be true then these are proper speaches The rocke is Christ the Lambe is the Passeouer the cuppe is the newe Testament baptisme is the lauer of regeneration And S. Augustines rule De doct Christ lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giue place to D. Sanders decree Si autem flagiâ—iis c. If the words of scripture seeme to coÌ„maunde any wicked nor vngodly acte or to forbid any profit or well doing it is a figure Except ye shall eate saith he the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act Therfore it is a figure commanding vs to communicate with the Lordes passion and profitable to kepe in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Againe Locut de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt noÌ„ dixit tres dies significaÌ„t Et multuÌ„ haec locutio notanda est vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur Inde est quod ait Apostolus Petra autem erat Christus non ait Petra significabat Christum Three basketes are three daies he said not they signifie three daies And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie Hereof it is that the Apostle saieth And the rocke was Christ hee saith not the Rocke did signifie Christ. Finally where Sander saieth it is against the nature of a Sacrament not to signifie plainly I agree with him affirming that the bread and wine which is eaten and dronken doe plainly signifie that we are fed spiritually with the very body and bloud of Christ vnto the full assurance of our perseuerance continuance in the fauour of God euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life and the wordes in this Sacrament be as plaine as in the other but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion CAP. XII Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. Sander to dispute for his life would take the conclusion thus it is a signe of his body therfore it is his bodie in deed So that Sander to dispute for his life would ouerthrow the nature of opposites which cannot stande both together at one time and in one respect But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God hee will haue the argument tryed by the word of God And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ which he saith were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth which they signified because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine and the grace of saluation were not yesterday and to day the same for euermore the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde Hebr. 13. Apocalipse 13. Secondly hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe speaking to the leprous man to him that had the palsie to the disciples of Iohn baptist to the dumme man to proue that when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh When Sander shal dispute for his life he must chuse him an easye aduersary for els he will soone loose
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
and not the verie image of things applying the shadowe to the Lawe the image to the gospel and the things themselues to the life to come In which application he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel but an image of things and not the thinges themselues and thereby in deede denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vs but an image thereof For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes that we haue the verie flesh of Christ vnder the image o◠forme of bread the Apostle saying we haue the image of things which image if it be none other but the accidents of breade wee haue no great prerogatiue aboue the Law In deede the Apostle meaneth that the same things which were but rudely shadowed as it wer with a cole to the fathers in the Law are in a liuely image described and set forth vnto vs in the Gospel For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come but possesseth them by faith Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander vppon this text Christ gaue vs his real flesh vnder the forme of breade or else he gaue not the thing it selfe and if hee gaue it without figure out state were not an image of the things themselues Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen but of the clearenes of the doctrine of those things which are promised and therefore he calleth them good things to come and Christ an high Priest of good things to come As madde yea and more frantike is that conclusion that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments except he gaue his flesh vnder the forme and figure of breade By which drunken conclusion it should follow that Christs mediation depended vpon the institution of the Sacrament which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to haue bene made complet in his death which was effectuall vnto all ages alike Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses because he hath not therein giuen vs his naturall flesh which is in heauen And last of all that Christ is not a mediator vnto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper but onely to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper Againe as vntrue it is that because Christ came to fulfill the Law therfore it was necessarie that he should giue his flesh vnder a figure which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnder the Lawe as though there were one meane of saluation for them and another for vs. The scripture doth often distinguish the Law and the Gospel shewing what is peculiar to either of them but it neuer affirmeth that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe were saued otherwise then by the Gospel that is by remission of sinnes through faith in the mercie of God reconciled to vs by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts to make a difference of the saluation of the persons Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined as Sander seemeth to say when Christ did institute his supper which hee called the new Testament but euen from the beginning of the world but yet to take effect vertue and strength by the death of Christ of which Testament the supper is a sacrament bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament as well when it is called the newe Testament as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept of not killing expounded by Christ to extend to anger proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees which expounded the precept onely of murthering with the hand For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth was lawfull before the time he made that exposition or that to commit adulterie in heart by lusting after a woman was not sinne before Christ did so interpret that commaundement If it were sinne then it was a breach of the Law if it were a breach of the Lawe it was of the Lawe that was giuen therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall and had that true meaning and was so taken of all good men before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses That all legall instruction and propheticall figures are transferred into the sacraments of Christ as Leo saith we agre We denie not that which Dionyse saieth although wee may not acknowledge him to haue beene S. Pauls scholler that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen spirituall contemplation and of the Lawe sensible signes Neither of both these autorities proue the matter in question As for the distinction of gifts whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe in the end of this chapter we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine But such distinction as was in deede betweene that which Moses gaue and God gaue we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine which sheweth y◠right difference betweene the auctor and the minister the signe the thing signified But that distinction betwene the gift which the Father gaue alwayes and that which the sonne promiseth to giue to be diuerse whē Sander cā proue we may be brought to acknowledge it In the meane time that promise of continuance of that gift in the Future temps which Christ hath alwayes giuen is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe we are not preferred before the lewes They did all eat the same spiritual meate c Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding euen such difference as is between the knowledge obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed and liuely set foorth in colours which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 10. CAP. XI The bread that Christ promiseth to giue which is his flesh must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh There is no doubt but Christ did giue the substance of his flesh which being crucified for vs is made the bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vs not after any corporall manner of eating but by faith in spirit not onely in the Sacrament of his supper but in baptisme also and without any sacrament But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued that Christ saying The breade which I will giue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil giue you at my last supper that I say I denie What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke let it bee examined with mine answere But admit he had spoken principally of his supper yet doeth it not followe which Sander doth inferre that he promised to giue his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
but this is sufficient that neither facere in Cyprian signifieth to sacrifice neither the bodie of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him then as it suffered in his sacrifice The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc Christ saith doe or make this thing or as Haymo saith Make this bodie for he saith not sic facite doe so but hoc facite doe or make this thing I haue answered sufficiently this making in the first booke where Sander findeth fault with our translation wherevnto I adde that which Cyprian writeth in the Epistle last mentioned Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est vtique id not obaudire facere oportet quod Christus fecit quod faciendum esse mandauit cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat si feceritis quod mando vobis iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to bee followed verily that wee ought to obey and to doe which Christ did and commaunded to bee doone seeing hee himselfe saieth in his Gospel if you shall doe that which I commaunde you nowe doe I not call you seruants but friendes In this saying Cyprian referreth the verbe facere to all thinges that Christ did and not to making his bodie But if wee shoulde graunt facere to signifie onely to make yet coulde Sander get no more of vs by making but a sacrament of his bodie yet for his exposition hee saieth hee hath Iustinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris Anno Dom. 1551. where hee writeth thus The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundemeÌ„t who when he had taken bread and giuen thanks said Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say my bodie First Sander hath put in more wordes then Iustinus for hee hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which Sander giueth Doe and make hee might as well haue added and sacrifice Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth vppon the errour of the Printer omitting one small letter o for in the next lyne continuing the hystorie of the institution he rehearseth the verie words of Christ. This is my bloude wherefore there is no doubt but lustinus telling what Christ saide doth not onely rehearse these wordes Doe this in remembrance of me but also these This is my bodie and so haue all the translatoâ—s taken it as Sander doth confesse Neither doth the processe of Iustinus prooue that he did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he saide before they tooke the meate that was consecrated by the worde of prayer to bee the flesh and bloude of Christ for that the Apostles do witnesse that Christ hath giuen them such a precept Hoc facite doe or make this thing that is to say my bodie for hee prooueth it by the whole hystorie of the institution remayning in the commentaries of the Apostles in which it is written that Christ saide Doe this in remeÌ„brance of me This is my bodie likewise after he had taken the cup and giuen thanks that he said This is my blood This processe therefore declareth what Christe said as wel in the one part as in the other and therefore excludeth the vaine cauillation of Sander grounded vpon a letter missing in one print which in other copies is not omitted as all the translations declare The 21. circumstance of the wordes in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christes death but that is best remembred by the presence of him selfe ergo he is really present for Christe would make the best remembrance that could be I answere Christe saith in the remembrance of me and not onelie of his dying but of me dying and redeeming It is against the nature of recordation or hauing in minde to haue the thing remembred actually present therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be reteining the nature of recordation and considering other circumstances to be considered as he did in al tokens that euer he made which were the best that could be deuised for God in al things doth the best wherfore this reasoÌ„ of Sand would proue the reall presence of Christ in all sacraments that were before his incarnatioÌ„ as wel as in this And whereas Chrysostome saieth Christ himselfe is daily set before vs that we shoulde not forget him he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians where he saith he was crucified among them and to the Corinthians saying his glorie shewed vnto vs with vncouered face which is by doctrine more cleare then the figures of the Lawe Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament onely Last of all whereas a potte of Manna was commaunded to be reserued for a memoriall vnto the children of Israel with what breade the Lord had fedde their fathers in the wildernesse to prooue that a thing may be the remeÌ„brance of it selfe I answere that it is nothing like For there a part of that visible foode was reserued for a sensible token of remembrance not of it selfe but of that which was eaten being of the same kinde But in this sacrament there is no such matter except wee shoulde beleeue the tales of a bloudie finger seene in the patten c. as a part of the whole bodie c. and the Papistes confesse that Christ is not sensiblie present as that Manna was The 22. circumstance of these words drinke yee all of this They all dranke of one cuppe Iudas and al saith hee for if two or three had drunke vp all either Christ must haue consecrated the cuppe againe or the rest must haue receiued a drinke not consecrated as they do in Englande when one cuppe is drunke vp an other is filled out of a prophane potte that standeth by therefore this circumstance doth shewe that more then wine is drunke This conclusion shal be graunted of them that drinke worthily without this circumstance and of them that drinke vnworthily also for they drinke iudgement to themselues But concerning consecration Sander imagineth it to be a magicall murmuring of wordes ouer that wine which is present in one cuppe Whereas the consecration of Christ and the ministers of England is a dedicating to the holy vse of the supper of so much bread and wine as shal be occupied in the celebration and neither more nor lesse But because he saith it is not the will of Christ that one Priest should consecrate in one maâ—â—eany more then once each kinde of the sacrament because Christ dyed but once and then both kinds together because his bloud and soule must be signified apart from his flesh and bodie I aske him what large cuppe they had or howe often in a day they said masse in the time of Leo bishop of Rome when a
great Cathedral Church as bigge as Paules Church in London was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all if it be necessarie to haue it in one cuppe when it is consecrated as Sander seemeth to affirme or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table that could suffice so great a multitude that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ though there be diuers chalices which hold it when the people are manie as Sander saith I doubt not vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally but I meruaile with what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine if we did minister so as he slandreth vs when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude and giue them nothing but prophane wine The 23. circumstance of these wordes this is my bloude Because it is in the common vulgar translation Hic est sanguis meus Sander maketh not a litle adoe that hic can agree with none but sanguis but when the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the newter gender it may well be translated this thing and so the relation must be to the wine like as the other Euangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cuppe for bloude it cannot be before the words of consecration if they will holde their owne principles And therefore the best interpreters to take away cauilling turne it Hoc est sanguis meus This thing is my bloud as this thing is my body where est may still stand for significat And yet I denie not but hic est sanguis and haec est caro may well be vsed as Cyprian doth in the same sense for a relatiue betweene two antecedents or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders may agree with either of them without any change of the sense as in Genesis Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago This is nowe bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shal be called woman Here the Pronoune is of both the genders and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe which is there the Masculine gender Gen. 9. saith hoc est signum foederis where hoc agreeth with signum yet the sense is hic arcus est signum this bowe is the signe Absolom Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller called in the vulgar translation tiâ—â—lum which is of the masculine gender and thereof saith Hoc erit monimentum nominis this shal be the moniment of my name meaning this pillar and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it I might multiply examples infinitely if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander which of the gender of the pronowne would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue Where hee saith we builde a roofe without walls or foundation as Hierom saith of heretikes that neglecting the literal sense builded al their fantasies vpon allegories I answere we doe not so but rather the Papists which builde a sacrament without an element denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper as for the literall sense of scripture we beleeue to be the onely true sense although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke and in this booke taketh this to be the literall sense of these words I will giue thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen meaning authoritie What the new testament is whereof the holy scripture speaketh A testameÌ„t he saith is a solemn ordeining of a thing by words confirmed by death of the testator dedicated with a sacrifice offered to God bloudily The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vs to haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if we keepe his lawe The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice I omit that hee saith the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance for keeping the lawe But to returne to the newe Testament which he so handleth that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument Three things saith hee are required in a solemne Testament the couenant bloudshedding and application of the bloude When Christ saieth This is my bloude of the newe testament either all these or one of these may bee called the newe testament But when saint Luke and saint Paul reporte Christ to haue saide This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud they seeme saith hee to take the worde Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof What say you Sander is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration is a substance expressed by the name of an accident where be the nownes pronownes verbs paticiples where be the relatiues antecedents cases and genders that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum why serue they not heere But heare a little more This that is in the Chalice saith he is not the promise of remitting sinnes but it is the new testament in Christes bloud That is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe Why sir euen now you told vs that it might be called a new testament as it is a law couenant or promise Will you make vs beleeue that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ which can haue but one sense in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise in the other it is not taken for a promise But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise what thing is that I pray you His bloud you will say Why then the sense of these words the newe testament in my bloude is my bloude in my bloude This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude What sense is this But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after now it testifieth that it is done although you are faine to alter the common reading to put in testamentum for testamenti How prooue you by these wordes that Sedulius was of your minde Alas he hath nothing to say but being taken with a figuratiue speach he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped with his taile betweene his legges For these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude if all the Grammarians in the worlde haue them in hande to construe cannot haue a Grammaticall sense but must needes bee taken figuratiuely and being so taken chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores for the true sense of them can be none other but this
the other Although he speake contrary to poperie which teacheth the presence to be after consecration and not at the time of consecrating But what bridle may hold in the shameles furie of Sander The third figure is of the paschall lambe which was a figure of Christs death and so applied by S. Iohn in that saying you shal not break a bone of him Ioan. 19. S. Paul 1. Cor. 5. not a figure of the supper from which as it differeth in signe so it is all one in the thing signified The fourth is the prophesie and figure of Manna which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spirituall meate that we eate not a figure thereof but a sacrament of our spirituall feeding by the flesh of Christ like as the water of the rocke which was Christ was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the bloud of Christ. Wherefore the partes of this comparison as they haue ben all answered before in the third book so they are of no force to prooue the real presence or transubstantiation but the contrary seing the differeÌ„ce of these two Sacramentes Manna and the Lordes bread is only in the signes nothing at all in the vertue of the things signified according to S. Aug. rule The fist figure is of the bloud of the old Testament wherunto the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse doth answere as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9. therefore these wordes of the supper This is the bloud of the new Testament of necessity must be figuratiue euen as these which are of the same sense This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud For we may not so farre aduance the Sacrament that we abase the death of Christ which is the only Sacrifice for our sinnes The sixt is the prophecy and figure of Iob which is a manifest peruerting of the scripture from the true meaning for either Iob complaineth of the cruelty of his seruantes that would euen eate his flesh in his aduersity and speaketh not of the loue that his seruantes had to be ioyned vnto his flesh as the context of that place Iob. 31. doth euidently shew or els he sheweth the complaint of his seruantes that were so occupied in hospitality that they had no leasure to eate their meat and therefore desired to eate the meare that was prouided for the stranger Or if with Chrysost. we should vnderstand their desire to be of eating of Iobs flesh yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation seing we may eate the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament The seuenth conference is of prophecies taken out of Dauid and Salomon whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament Dauid saith Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight against them who afflict me By which wordes he sheweth how bountifully God had bestowed his benifâ—â—â— vpon him both in this life and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come without any special regard vnto the supper of Christ or any Sacrament that was of the same signification vnto him The saying of Salomon Pro. 9. I haue an swered in the beginning of this work where it was placed by Sander The 8. conference is another Prophecie of Dauid where he saith all that be fat vpon earth haue eaten adored Sander saith they haue adored that which they do eat but Dauid saith not so Ps. 21. but that they shal worship God the author of their food as it followeth immediatly They shall all fall down c. And whereas Sander quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to iustifie the adoratioÌ„ of the blessed Sacrament of the altar the footstoole wherin the fulnes of the godhead corporally dwelleth you shall vnderstaÌ„d that Augustine vtterly denieth the Lords supper to be that bodie that was crucified but a Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken vs. The last conference is of many prophecies figures ioyned together as he saith for breuities sake The first is of Noe being naked after he was drunk laughed to scorne of his sonne So saith Sander was Christ after he had drunke his owne bloud in his supper which he planted for him selfe in the virgins wombe hanged naked laughed to scorne not only of the Iewes but also of the Sacramentaries for so grosse a deede that he drank his owne bloud vnder the form of wine What shal I say to this monstrous blasphemie wherein he compareth that filthie drunkennes shameles nakednes of Noe to the holy mysterie and passion of Christ After this he ioyneth the cakes that Abraham set before the Angels as figures of that mystical cake which was to come in Christs supper but whereof then were the butter milk calues flesh figures O madnesse more then folly for now wheresoeuer bread corn wine vines fruits of the earth were named all were figures of the sacrament wherin yet he saith is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit Isaac blessed Iacob which corne wine saying to Esau what caÌ„ I do more to theeâ— Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aser that should giue deinties to the faithful kings of that church God promiseth as the highest reward for keping of his coÌ„mandement to blesse the loaues of his people to giue abundance of bread wine If it be lawfull for Sander on this sort to play with the holy scriptures he may proue what he list And more probably might we proue the substaÌ„ce of bread wine to remaine in the SacrameÌ„t of which the scripture speaketh so often with so great coÌ„mendation if we should reason after his maner As for the meat of the sacrifice the she we bread the priests Ioaues they were in deede figures ofy e spiritual feeding that both they we had haue of yâ— flesh of Christ. But the curse of Elies house that his posterity should come beg a morsel of bread at the successors of Sadoc it is a grosse prophanatioÌ„ of Gods word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church to obteine the Sacrament And the dissembling of Dauid before Achis which came of infidelity is blasphemous to apply to our Sauiour Christe and especially with such termes as Sander vseth At his last supper he driuelâ—d like a child to their seeming that be wise in the world he changed his countenance and caried himselfe after a sort in his owne handes when holding and giuing to be eaten that whith seemed bread he doubted not to say this is my body c. For Christ carying him selfe after a sort in his owne handes Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation ferebatur in manibus suis which is neither according to the Hebrue text 1. Sam. 21. which saith he plaied the mad man in their handes nor according to the vulgar Latine which saith collabebatur inter manus eorum he fell downe among their handes troubleth himself to find how Dauid as a figure of Christ should
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
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
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
saieth hee for all men that by my selfe I may giue life to all and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all For death shall dye by my death and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus The sixt Booke To the Preface BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle or that which is in question CAP. I. The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the Pâ—phâ— Da 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalme The adoration of Christes bodie is no question betweene vs but whether the sacrament is to be adored that thereby the reall presence might be proued The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes is this verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him The poore or meeke shall eate and be satisfied they shall praise the Lord seeking him your soule shall liue for euer All the ends of the earth shall remember and be conuerted vnto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee Because the kingdome is the Lordes and he hath dominion among the Gentiles All that be fat on the earth shal eate and bow downe themselues before him they shall all fal downe which descend into the duste In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him that they shall praise God and that they shall haue eternall life But for as much as Christ nourisheth the faithfull otherwise then by the sacramâ—t it is great violence to draw this prophecie only or chiefly to the sacrament as Sander doth As for adoration of the sacrament heere is no colour for it Christ promiseth plainely that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua shall worship him fall downe before him but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied there is no mention in the worlde I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme and meddle onely with that which is pertinent to the question But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence saieth Sander concerning the person of the king But yet visible concerning the formes of bread wine to the end his mebers may know where to worship him And must wee haue the visible formes of bread and wine that we may know where to worship him Why doe wee not knowe that he is ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the father shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen S. Paul willeth vs to seek those things that are aboue where Christ is and not those things that are on earth because Christ is in heauen Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme to be meant of the sacrament is not of Sanders inuention we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie and passion the vowes of the church are good workes or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud with them who celebrate those things in his feare Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine Cassiodorus Beda Euthymius all which affirm this prophesie of eating to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament although not onely to it But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament Forsooth saith Sander manducauerunt adorauerunt are both referred to one thing they haue eaten the Sacrament therfore they haue adored the Sacrament I deny the maior the text is plaine that they haue adored bowed and fallen downe to God not to that which they haue eaten If I say Sander hath eaten giuen thanks do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate or to him that gaue him meate This is a miserable argument But S. Augustine doth fortifie it For he saith vpon that Psalm Euen the rich of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord neither are they so filled as yâ— poore euen vnto imitation sed tamen adorauerunt but yet they haue adored I heare that they haue worshipped but I heare not that they haue worshipped or adored the SacrameÌ„t And if you say they haue worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie how proue you that they worshipped the same really present in the SacrameÌ„t Or that the Sacrament may be called the bodie of the lords humilitie If this wil not serue Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honoraâ—â—m ca. 27. Suprà dictum est c. It was 〈◊〉 before the poore shal eat be filled But here it is said all the rich of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie bloud But they adore only be not filled also because they follow not For although they eat Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe because God hath raised him from the dead hath giuen him a name which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed of things heauenly earthly vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come themselues to the table they eate adore but yet they are not filled because they do not huÌ„ger thirst af ter righteousnes Al this while I heare adoring of Christ but not of the Sacrament nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament I would haue al men that eat the Sacrament not only to eat but also adore giue thanks not to the Sacrament but to him that spiritually feedeth vs by the Sacrament But â—eda expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shall adore because they shall come with a certein outward reuerence or worshiping Although Beda liued in a corrupt time yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped Therfore he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence that men vsed in comming to the lords table which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde haue him he should not haue said a certeine externall worshipping but with all honor worship both
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
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are of
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But