owne eyes but that which I commaunde you that onely shall you do without adding any thing to it or taking any thing away from it After a fonde quarrell of the quotation omitted by the printer and his coniecture thereupon Moses sayeth not saith Bristowe That onely which I doe write but that onely which I commaund And so our sauiour Christe commaundeth the Iewes accordingly The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire and therefore whatsoeuer they commaund you obserue it I aske no better wee must obserue that only which God coÌ„mandeth whether Moses or any other of the Prophets apostles or Euangelists haue written it whether the Scribes or Pharisees pastors or teachers do preach it But where shal we finde that which God hath coÌ„maunded but in the law the prophets in the writings of the apostles euangelists which are able to make vs wise to saluation which are profitable to make that man of god perfect prepared to al good works As for the pinnes saith Bristow you may see in the doctors they were not for that cause you imagine of leauing nothing to mans deuise in that worship of God For how say you then by Dauid Salomon who changed not only a pinne but all the pinnes the whole tabernacle into the temple ordeined musicall instruments and manye other thinges for the worship of God that the lawe did not mention I aunswere whatsoeuer Dauid and Salomon chaunged and ordeyned they did not by the deuise of man but by reuelation from God who had ordeined them to doe it But mine error is sayeth Bristow because I do not distinguish betwene men that haue onely their owne humaine spirites and men that haue the spirite of God as Moses the Propheâ—â— and Apostles and the catholike Church I were in deedâ— in a grosse errour if I could not distinguish the spirite of God from the spirite of man But Bristowe erreth because he confoundeth men that were specially chosen to receiue the worde of God by reuelation and the same to preach and write as the Prophets and Apostles with the Church which consisteth of men hauing the spirite of adoption but for the certeintie of trueth buylded vpon the foundation of the Prophets Apostles or else erring if they depart from that foundation The digression he maketh to the vnlearned brother because I knowe not the treatise against which he writeth I omitt But where he returneth to admonish mee his fellowe Fulke as he calleth mee to looke better to my Logike concerning mine argument ab authoritate nâ—gaâ—iuâ— I do him to witt that God I thanke I am not to learne Logike nor the force of an argument of authoritie negatiuely of him The argument that angreth him is this All true doctrine is taught in the Scriptures Purgatorie is not taught in the scriptures therefore Purgatorie is no true doctrine Here are two faultes sayeth Bristowe one because the maior is false the other supposing the maior were true yet cannot the argument be opposed to our arguments of traditions councels fathers I will first proue the maior That whereby the man of God may be made perfect furnished to all good workes is taught in the Scriptures 2. Tim. 3. All true doctrine is that whereby the man of God may be made perfect prepared to all good workes Therefore all true doctrineâ—s taught by the scriptures Againe That which is able to make a man wise to saluation teacheth all true doctrine needefull to saluation for of other truethes we speake not but the scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation ergo 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth all true doctrine And concer 〈…〉 g the seconde fault which supposeth the maior mi 〈…〉 were true yet denyeth the argument I woulde 〈…〉 sh you fellowe Bristowe to looke better to your 〈…〉 gike howe an argument that is true in matter and 〈…〉 rme may not be opposed against you But you 〈…〉 ing a wittie example if you prooue a doctrine vnto 〈…〉 câ— out of the olde testament and I oppose therunto 〈…〉 y negatiue argument and saye All true doctrine 〈…〉 aught in the newe Testament that doctrine is not 〈…〉 ght in the newe testament therefore that doctrine 〈…〉 o true doctrine You aske mee whether this be well 〈…〉 posed of mee I aunswere no neither woulde I euer 〈…〉 pose such an argument against you which though it 〈◊〉 true in forme yet it is manifestly false in matter 〈…〉 r if you suppose the maior to be true as you say that 〈…〉 olde it and must holde it especially if you say so then 〈…〉 he minor vtterly false for then no doctrine is taught 〈◊〉 the olde testament but the same is taught also in 〈◊〉 newe Testament Wherefore this example prooueth 〈…〉 t but that mine argument ab authoritate negatiuè is 〈…〉 ghtly opposed against traditions councels fathers 〈…〉 ch like as auouch any doctrine for true which is not 〈…〉 ght in the Scriptures in which all trueth is taught The second part Of Scriptures alledged concerning the question of the Church â—â—d first what he alledgeth indefinitely that the Church may 〈…〉 re The firste text cited Ar. 86. Euery man is a lyar â—herfore the whole Chuch militant consisting of men â—hich are al lyars may erre alltogether Against this Bristowe asketh Why I doe not saye 〈…〉 e Church triumphant And demaundeth whether 〈…〉 at also doe not consist of men I aunswere the scrip 〈…〉 re Psalm 116. speaketh of men liuing in this worlde 〈…〉 d such as are meere men lest he should cauill at our 〈…〉 uiour Christ which is a man and yet not contained in this generall rule As for the members of the triumphant Church whether they may properly be câ—lled men I will not dispute but wee speake as the scripture speaketh of men on earth and the Church o 〈…〉 â—arth And therefore although it be true that somâ— men by the gifte of God are veraces true yet nere which may not erre And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather Purg. 451. God onely is not true if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot erre is not auoided by saying the Apostles cannot erre For vndoubtedly the Apostles did erre That their preachings and writings were not erronious it was because they were not theirs but the enditing of the holy ghoste by them But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope it is manifest by this that he hath spoken contrary to the spirite of God in the Scriptures not onely in matters of controuersie betweene him and vs but also in heresies condemned by both partes The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I saye The true onely Church of God hath no such priuilege graunted but that she may be deceiued in some things for her knowledge is vnperfect her prophecying is vnperfect Bristowe replyeth that S. Paul in that speach includeth him selfe Our knowledge our prophecying c. is vnperfect whether we speake or write And sayth that he troweth I will
would haue nothing done in the celebration of the lords supper namely in ministring of the cup but that Christ himselfe did lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow answereth the he writeth against the Aquarians which offered water only wher as Christ offered wine which was clean against Christs doing And what is your sacriledge in robbing of the church of Christ of the whole cup is it not cleane contrary both to his doing his coÌ„maundemeÌ„t drinke ye al of this and such doing as he did for a tradition vnto vs when the Apostle rehersing that tradition reherseth drinking of the Lords cup by the lay as well as eating of the bread As for mingling wine with water which first was but a custome of sobriety after grew into a ceremonie if Cyprian should vrge of necessitie he might be answered by his owne rule Likewise where Chrysostom saith it was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy misteries a remembrance should be made of them that are departed I said we wil be bold to charge him with his owne sayings first Hom de Adam Heâ—a satis sufficere c. wee thinke it sufficeth ynough whatsoeuer the writings of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresaid rule insomuch that we count it not all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrary to the rules appointed By this Bristow seeth that I am a great reader of the doctors For whosoeuer made this homily saith he he took those words out of the instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus in the first tome of councels where the wordes are not the writings of the Apostles but the writings of the see apostolike which are thought sufficient Whatsoeuer my reading be for the maker of the Homily I cannot depose but I trust he will not deny but it hath in al printed books gone vnder the name of Chrysostom and it containeth nothing vnworthy the iudgement of Chrysostom It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoeuer gathered that instruction borrowed those words out of this homily and from the writings of the Apostles peruerted them to the writings of the see apostolike many such borrowing peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles For admit that not Chrysostom but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of that Epistle or instruction Why did he alter them if hee thought the writings of the apostolike see sufficient to approue all catholike doctrine except perhaps his copie had also apostolica scripta that copie which Peter Crab followed in gathering the councels is corrupted Certaine it is the homily is auncient and made in the time when the Pelagian heresie begun to spring which was in the later time of Chrysostom therfore I haue vsed no fraude or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms wherto Bristow maketh no answere but denyeth the authority Likewise wher I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow the Canon or rule of the holy scripture but permit al to their owne cogitations Bristow answereth nothing but that Chrysost. answereth heretikes which said our Lord took not ture flesh as though his seÌ„teÌ„ce is not general against al heretiks which go besid the scripture Thirdly I saide if we be further vrged we wil allege that he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a theese To this Bristow replyeth that I will call Chrysostom a theefe by his owne saying for vsing tradition yea verely if he be obstinate and why not as well as S. Paul or an Angel accursed if they bring an other Gospel Secondly he saith as though he vseth not scripture which vseth tradition or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I aunswere such tradition as is warraÌ„ted by scripture we refuse not but if al your traditions were warraÌ„ted by scripture wher should be your vnwritten verities Thirdly saith Bristow the thing that he speaketh of is that Antichrist Pseudochrists cannot shewe any commission out of scripture I answere that proueth the Pope to be Antichrist who neither for his authoritie nor for his doctrine can shewe any commission out of the scripture Fourthly I saide we may bee as bolde with Chrysostome as he saide he would be with Paul himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somwhat more wee must not be ruled by Paul himselfe if he speake any thing that is his owne and any thing that is humaine but wee must obey the Apostle when he caryeth Christ speaking in him Bristow asketh whether he spake onely by scripture No verily but by reuelation he spake to S. Paul by audâ—ble and humaine voyce hee spake to the rest of the Apostles and whatsoeuer hee spake any way pertaining to our instruction is committed to writing and therefore I beleeue not Chrysostom alledging a tradition of the Apostles which is not founde in their writings Another place of Chrysostom I cite in Luke Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bredde heresies Therefore hee woulde haue heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures We would the same saith Bristowe but what maketh this for onely scripture to be of authoritie yes forsooth If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures that which commeth not through ignorance of the scriptures is no heresie And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures commeth not of ignorance of the scriptures therefore he that knoweth the scriptures knoweth all truth Vnto Leo the great alledging custome and tradition I oppose his owne saying for onely Scripture to be sufficient Ep. 10. They fall into this follie which when they be hindred by some obscuritie to know the truth haue not recourse to the wordes of the Prophets nor to the writinges of the Apostles nor to the authorities of the Gospell but to themselues He doth not say saith Bristowe that all truethes are expressed in the Scripture For he blameth the heretike for not hauing recourse to our common Creede as though there were any thing in our common Creede which is not expressed in the Scripture And if onely Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscuritie howe could they be blamed for not hauing recourse vnto them for that which they cannot find in them The words of the councel of Constantinople the 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these If all men had simply and without calliditie from the beginning receiued the Gospels preaching and bene content with the Apostles institutions the matters verily had beene well a fine and neither the authors of heresies nor the fautors of the Priestes had bene put to the paynes of conflictes but because the diuell not resting rayseth vp his squires therefore Christe also in time conuenient hath raised vp his warriours against them to wit the general
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
found in them 1. Tim. 3. Now commeth Bristowe to answere such things as I obiect out of Augustine against vnwritten traditions which he digesteth into three sorts The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the autority of the canonicall Scripture before all writinges of Catholike Doctours of Bishops of Councels before all customes and traditions But this Bristow denieth to be the question but whether nothing but Scripture be of authoritie I aunswere those places proue that nothing is of infallible veritie but the scriptures therfore they proue that they only are of irrefragable authoritie The second sorte of places are about this question who hath the true Church Of which question I affirme that S. Augustine would haue the Church sought only in the Scriptures And heâ—e he biddeth me reade his first demande likewise I wil send him to mine answer vnto the same At length he confesseth that Augustine is content in that question to set aside all other authorities to trie it by the Scriptures But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question that he neuer sayeth Neither doe we say it or refuse any authoritie that is agreeable to the Scriptures And as that one question which was betweene S. Augustine and the Donatistes was determinable by the onely authorititie of Scriptures so are all questions that are betweene the Church of all times and all heretikes The Donatistes helde that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world except Affrica as the Papistes holde that it is perished out of all partes except a peece of Europa Saint Augustine by the Scripture proueth the continuance in the Churche dispersed ouer all the worlde and that we holde against the Romishe synagogue of Popish Donatistes who haue separated them selues from the Catholike Church into the function of an Italian Priest as the other did of an Affrican But Bristowe sayeth I am as blinde as a beetle in saying that the Papistes did separate themselues from our Church seeing it is certain that Luther did separate him selfe from the Popish Church The like might be said to all them that forsoke the fellowship of any heretikes to come vnto the Churche of God But Bristow is as madde as a marche Hare that bragging so much of the title of the church he is driuen to trie it only by the Scriptures as Augustine calleth vpon the Donatists The other places which I aledge out of Aug saith Bristowe are about al questions with heretikes whatsoeuer As that he would oppresse the Arrian Maximinus with the authoritie of the Nicene councel Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristowe asketh whether he might not presse them with the authoritie thereof as he doth the Donatistes But aske Augustine him selfe who saith he ought not in that case that he charged the Donatistes which it was by their own concession because they allowed it But he saith in the same place the Fathers of the Nicene councell ratified Homousion that is equalitie of the sonne with the father Veritatis autoritate autoritatis veritate by authoritie of trueth and by trueth of authoritie This truth of authoritie Bristowe will haue to be the authoritie of the Nicene councell as though the councel could not erre but then what needed the authoritie of trueth In deede where the councel decreeth with the trueth it is the trueth of authoritie for other authoritie a Councell hath not but of trueth to declare trueth and not to make trueth for if it declare errour as the councell of Arimine did it hath no trueth of authoritie because it hath no authoritie of trueth Moreouer Bristow saith I translate falsely these wordes Nec ego huius autoritate nec tuillius detineris Neither am I bounden to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other Whereas it should be Neither doth the authoritie of the one hold me nor of the other holde thee There is greate difference betweene beeing holden and beeing bound To the bare authoritie of the councell of Nice Maximinus was no more bounden then Augustine to the bare authoritie of Ariminum It was the trueth of Nice that the Arrian was bounde vnto and the falshod of Ariminum that Augustine was not holden with vs. But after the example of Augustine saith Bristowe we will not alledge the councell of Trent as our proper witnesses to our side but the authoritie of Scriptures common to both Witnesse hereof Bristowes motiues where he would ouerthrowe vs by the bare name of Catholike and heretike c. Againe he saith that we make challenge of 600. yeares also And what then Witnesses of trueth we take wheresoeuer they be but authoritie of trueth onely out of the Scriptures Where I said that Augustine setting all other persuasions aside prouoketh onely to the Scriptures to trie the faith and doctrine of the Churche Bristowe answereth Howe true that is appeareth in the same booke De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite For when he hath proued against the Donatistes the Church to be his he saith expressely that to be inough also for all other questions Sufficit nobis It is inough for vs that we haue that Church which is pointed too by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonicall Scriptures De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressely it is inough for all other questions I must needes say expressely you lie For the onely question being how the Donatistes should be receiued if they would come to the Catholike Church as though they were the true Church because baptisme giuen among them was not repeated in the Catholike Church Augustine after much concertation saith Quapropter cum dicatur haereticis c. Wherfore seeing it is said to the heretiks Rightousnes is wanting to you which without charitie and the bonde of peace no man can haue seeing they theÌ„selues confesse that many haue baptisme which haue not righteousnesse and if they would not confesse it the holy Scripture conuinceth them I maruell howe they thinke when we wil not baptise them again hauing not their own but the baptisme of Christ that we do so as though we iudged nothing to be now wanting to theÌ„ that because baptisme is not giuen to them in the Catholike Church which they are founde to haue already they thinke they receiue nothing there where they receiue that without which that which they haue auaileth them to their destruction and not to their saluation Which if they wil not vnderstand it is sufficient for vs that we holde that Church which is shewed forth by most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures Where he speaketh not of the authortie of the Church to determine questions but sheweth it is sufficieÌ„t to haue proued by the Scriptures that they are the true Church although the Heretikes will not vnderstand how baptisme being ministred out of the Church hath not effect but in the true Church for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church that last question
bee the author the Prophetes and Apostles for witnesses vnder this antiquitie that which had an erroneus beginning shall haue a shamefull ending Purg. 399. Heere Bristowe taketh aduantage of the Printers error although he be admonished 〈◊〉 of in the Corrections and not content with that 〈…〉 fieth my wordes making me to say as for witnesse 〈◊〉 this antiquitie we passe not for them Yes 〈◊〉 we esteeme all good witnesses of that auncient 〈◊〉 whereof God is the author But you say the rule w 〈…〉 receyue proueth the Apostles to be authors of sole 〈…〉 payer for the dead in the Masse such like articles 〈◊〉 taught and beleeued before Luther began such 〈…〉 uations c. But I reply that Vincentius rule is 〈◊〉 such fooles fable but requireth antiquitie to bee 〈…〉 tinued alwayes euen from Christ which seeing you 〈◊〉 not shewe noâ— other conditions which hee requi 〈…〉 for your articles his rule helpeth you nothing at a◠〈◊〉 rule which he handleth at large throughout his b 〈…〉 is briefly set downe in this sentence In ipsa 〈…〉 Ecclesia mag 〈…〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 id 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈…〉 er 〈◊〉 ab 〈…〉 us 〈…〉 est 〈…〉 propriâ—que C 〈…〉 n qâ—â—d iâ—sa 〈…〉 q 〈…〉 d 〈…〉 A 〈…〉 the Catholike Church it selfe wee must greatly 〈◊〉 that wee hold that thing which hath bene euery 〈…〉 which hath beene alwayes which hath beene of all 〈◊〉 beleeued for that is truely and properly Ca 〈…〉 which the verie force and reason of the name d 〈…〉 reth that comprehendeth al thinges truely 〈…〉 ly Examine your articles by this rule aâ—d you 〈◊〉 finde not one of them catholike So that my excep 〈…〉 of the soueraigne authority of only scripture 〈…〉 deth 〈◊〉 well with the rules both of Tertulliâ—â— and Vince 〈…〉 Lyri 〈…〉 For to the trueth as Aristotle saith all 〈…〉 ges agree that are true but fâ—lshoode soone bewrayeth itselfe 2 Aga 〈…〉 the A 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Aga 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ed traditions of the Apo 〈…〉 I make exceptioÌ„ of the writinges of the Apostles to bâ—â— the onely c 〈…〉 yne 〈…〉 esse of theâ—â— true tradition Aâ—d I saye Allâ—â— blâ—â—phâ—mously fâ—thereth â—ppon the Apo 〈…〉 the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for the 〈…〉 〈…〉 we chargeth me neuerthelesse to affirme that 〈◊〉 Cyprian Augustine Ierome and a great ma 〈…〉 are witnesses hereof Pur. 362. wherin he shame 〈…〉 y belyeth mee for that I do onely rehearse parte of 〈…〉 s wordes which affirmeth them to be witnesses 〈…〉 ch thing Bristowe might easily see by the diuersi 〈…〉 of print if he had not beene disposed to â—â—â—under me 〈…〉 er this by the example of Allen which is a great po 〈…〉 I pose the Papistes with this question Why God 〈…〉 uld haue none of the Apostles to put this matter or 〈…〉 e worde thereof in writing which afterward shoulde 〈◊〉 disclosed by Tertullian Cyprian Augustine c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bristow after much bibling out of S. Augustin 〈…〉 e Apostles haue not left in writing the whole order 〈…〉 celebration of the sacraments answereth that one piece of 〈◊〉 that it was omitted by the apostles was for bre 〈…〉 s sake But I Bristow do not speake of any order or 〈…〉 me of ceremonies which because they are variable 〈…〉 cording to times places persons the apostles haue 〈◊〉 prescribed but of the doctrin of praying sacrifising 〈…〉 r the dead which in much lesse bâ—â—uitie then the 〈…〉 stles vsed might haue beene without any tedi 〈…〉 nes let downe at the least in one worde mentioned 〈…〉 herfore breuitie could be no piece of the cause but a 〈…〉 ore miserable refuge of a papist driuen to the wall 〈…〉 r want of a better answere But if this be a piece what is then 〈◊〉 supplemeÌ„t of the whole cause Bristow answereth in these words 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 g. Which 〈…〉 so many â—f 〈…〉 one of â—wspanâ— wâ—â—ld 〈…〉 Do I imagine Bristowe am so greatly 〈…〉 ceiued I follow not mine own imagination but their 〈…〉 ne writing S. Iohn testifieth that those things which 〈◊〉 had written were su 〈…〉 to obtaine euerlasting life 〈…〉 y beleeuing them Io 〈…〉 S. Luke â—â—eweth his purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 th in a 〈◊〉 summe the trueth of all thinges 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 les deliuered concerning the docâ—â—ine 〈…〉 ngs of Christ L 〈…〉 Ac 〈…〉 S. Paul 〈…〉 eth that the holy scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe 〈…〉 prepared to all good workes 2 Tim. 2. But you haue greate reason to proue that they purposed not to put all in writinge because neither so many of them nor o 〈…〉 of them so often would haue meÌ„tioned one thing wh 〈…〉 as contrariwise it is manifest thereby that they studie not so much for breuitie but that they might haue expressed in a word or two prayers sacrifice for that deaâ— seing so manye of them some one so often doeth mention one thing Againe it were againste reason that they shoulde mention one thing so often whicâ— though it be profitable yet it is not necessarie to bee often mentioned to omitte altogether such matten as are necessarie to bee knowne and not in one worde mention them The purpose of the holy ghost that Bristowe doth imagine were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect that the gospels were written onely to shewe Christ to say Consummatum est and al things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him the Actes of the Apostles to shew but as it were the first birth of the Church the Apocalipse to shew the whole course of the Churche to the ende of the worlde The other bookes were written saith he specially against the perfidious Iewes other false maisters of that time As likewise in euerie age afterwarde we haue the Ecclesiasticall I say not the Canonicall writers and councels See you not how the blasphemous dog restraineth the vse of the Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written coÌ„pareth Ecclesiasticall writers and councels with the canonical scriptures If this that he saith were true the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to saluation as S. Paul saith wtout traditions Ecclesiastical writers 2. Tim. 3. Those thinges which S. Paul promiseth to set in order when he commeth 1 Cor. 11. I said must be vnderstood not of doctrine but of ceremonies as the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Bristowe aunswereth that the solemne prayer for the deade in the celebration of the sacrifice is one of Saint Paules ordinances I reply if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contayned Saint Paules writing yea or in any part of the cano 〈…〉 all Scriptures wee would not striue for the forme 〈◊〉 prayer But if wee may adde newe doctrines vpon 〈…〉 ler of the Apostles tradition neither is the Scrip 〈…〉 e so perfect as the holy Ghoste affirmeth it to bee 〈…〉 ther can the
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
and to great profite of many Likewise in the ende a passing good similitude of wine to finishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone and then againe water and as wine tempered with water is pleasant and delighteth the taste so the setting out of the matter deliteth the eares of them that reade the storie But to the rest Bristowe asketh if the scribes of the holy ghost must bee alwayes eloquent or able to doe all without sweat or labour I aunswere as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them so they neuer complain for the lack of it but spirituall vtterance they haue abundantly and that without sweat and watching whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them Neither doth S. Paul confesse that he lacketh vtterance when he said he was rude in speaking 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apostles did obiect against him for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence that he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans as Bristowe saith blasphemously but sheweth that he was bold vpō his office because he was the minister of Christ vnto the gentils Ro. 15 That he vsed the hand of Tertius in writing that Epistle or any other it was not to auoid the labor of endi ting Finally that he vsed intollerable paines in preaching It proueth not that it cost him great labor trauel in studying what to write or preach either which the spirit of God did minister vnto him plentifully But neuer doth he craue pardon as one vncerteine whether he haue don well or no as the writer of the Machabees doth confessing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could and in the beginning leauing to the author the exact diligēce of euery particular so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth which are refelled both by the former book of Machabees and by Iosephus Where Allen alleged the authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby for in S. Ieroms works none such is found now commeth Bristow telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees in the vulgar latine Bybles taken out of the sēse of Ierom as diuers of those prefaces be and that wil appeare by these two places which I cite out o◠him to proue that booke not canonicall The former is in his preface vpon the book of kings where rehersing the names of the canonical books he omitteth this and after saith expresly it is not in the Canon Bristow aunswereth it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes As though the church of God since Christ shoulde haue more bookes of the olde testament in the canon then the church of the Hebrews had Ierom saith that this preface of his may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin v◠scire valeamus quicquid extrahos est inter Apocripha esse ponendū That we may be able to know that whatsoeuer is beside these is to be placed among the apocriphall writings So that Ierom speaketh expresly that not onely among the Iewes but among Christians also these al other books without the canon are to be taken for apocriphall The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs that they were neither in the Churches canon Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudeth Tobias Machabees but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia she may reade to the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of the churches doctrin To wit saith Bristow against the Iewes as though the Churches doctrin is not to be cōfirmed against heretikes and euen to the Catholiks themselues by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall after a sort it was of me confessed and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth de praed sanct de ciuit Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. But Ierom is also cited in his preface vpon the booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice if that were so what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees But in deede it is not so for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith the words are these With the Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among the hagiographaor books called holy writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things that come in controuersie is iudged lesse conuenient yet being written in the Chaldee tongue it is counted among the stories But because the Synod of Nice is redde to haue accounted it in the number of holy scriptures I haue yelded to your request c. First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa which is false as Hierom affirmeth Prolog Gal. in lib. reg Secondly as Erasmus hath noted he affirmeth not that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell but saith it is read to haue accounted perhaps in some such writer as coyned the canon sent vnto the Aphrican councell Thirdly if we shall vnderstand Hagiographa heere as Bristowe woulde haue them not for those nine that be canonicall but others that be Apocriphal yet holy writings why shoulde we not likewise say that the computatiō of the Nicen councel was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings and not among the canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before in saying that Ierom doth simply refuse the books of the Machabees saith the church receiueth thē not for canonicall euen that which Bristow saith I should haue shewed that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue them that we might be able to know saith he speaking I dare say of himselfe all other members of the Church that whatsoeuer books are without the Canō of the Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames but Eusebiu before them saith plainly it is a counterfait protesting that I speake it not to excuse them that doubt of it Bristo◠is not content except I woulde condemne thē for heretikes which afterwarde reuersed their error especially Luther Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite when he saith the cleane contrary and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius I know not out of whose translation But the words of Eusebius are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit 2 About onely scripture I said Cyprian
authoritie or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles And consequently there is no cause to thinke that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vpon them for departing from that see In the 29. Demaund of Traditions where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians which accused the scriptures of imperfection saying that they are ambiguous and that the trueth can not be found in them by such as knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth c. Bristowe answereth that S. Irenee him selfe as al Catholikes will haue both scripture and tradition Yea sir but what tradition any trueth of doctrine conserued by tradition which is not contained in the holie scriptures nothing lesse But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures Hunc patrem c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches they that wil may learne out of the scripture it selfe and vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered is contained in their writinges and it is still an hereticall assertion to say that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing but some by word of mouth In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie where I affirme the order of the Apostles schoole is first to heare the word of God preached and then to beleeue Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend that he first beleeued and afterward sought to vnderstand Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine lib Retr 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to haue ben for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught by most certaine reason what was true whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles without requiring a reason of their doctrine howe vaine it is I leaue to children to laugh at seeing I speak not of reason but of the word of God preached which must needes goe before faith Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil cred cap. 13. where he saith It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion But howe should faith be persuaded but by the preaching of the word of God without curious inquisition according to the reason of man Where I say that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God Bristow derideth their authoritie who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word as though the Popish superiors might not or their supreme head although beside so many blasphemous errors as he holdeth wherof the controuersie is with the Papistes it haue not bene oft proued that diuers Popes haue bene condemned euen by generall Councels for heretikes Where I saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops Bristowe saith if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme I would not so say But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke who died soudenly but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things appeareth but the contrarie Where I saide that to beleeue the Catholike Church is not to beleeue all and euery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine Bristowe would haue me suppose the Apostles had said Credo S. Romanam ecclesiam and then asketh howe I would haue construed it Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas c. But if the Apostles would haue taught vs to giue credite to the Church of Rome in all things they would haue taught vs to say Credo Romanae ecclesiae And Credo scripturis Canonicis duodecim Apostolis quatuor Euangelistis c. I giue credite to the holy scriptures to the twelue Apostles and to the foure Euangelistes For Credo with an Accusatiue case to signifie I giue credite howe so euer you deride my grammatication will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme as he is reported to haue done once for fiatur In the 35. Demand of Vnitie where I said the Church may be called the house of peace because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith Bristowe saith by this reason many olde heresies were with in the house of peace because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest may breake peace as that of quartadecimani who disagreed onely in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion might be in the house of peace as Irenaeus testifieth if obstinate contempt of generall order did not make a schisme and of a schisme an heresie as in the Donatistes Otherwise difference in a ceremonie as I said maketh not diuision of faith Bristowe saith yes if they holde their ceremonie necessarie But then they holde it not as a ceremonie or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull But that maketh not diuision Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie against Anicetus yet he was not diuided from him for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus nor Anicetus with him No more doe they among vs that differ in opinion of ceremonies except some fewe schismaticall heades that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes Bristowe saith are such as may be among Christians as Augustine testifieth Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel if Bristowe may be beleeued If we might haue a Christiā generall Councel for such matters as are in controuersie among vs I doubt not but we should agree better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie remaineth still among you notwithstanding the Florentine Councel which you say most impudently that I confesse to haue resolued the matter when an other Councel and an other Pope at the same time
the mediator with which she had nothing to doe as a mother but was esteemed of him as a woman who knew when it was conuenient for him to doe whatsoeuer were for the glorie of Gods kingdome to be done without her or any other bodies admonition Neither doe I charge her as Chrysostom in Ioann Hom. 20. Optabat enim c. For she wished that he might now winne the fauor of men and that she might be made more noble by the fauour of her sonne And perchance she was moued with some humane affection euen as his brethren when they saide shew thy selfe to the world being desirous by his miracles to winne themselues a fame Therefore he answered more sharpely what haue I to doe with thee woman my houre is not yet come For that he did reuerence his mother Luke doth testifie that he was subiect to his parentes and this Euangelist doth shew how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion For where his parentes did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD did offend nothing it was meete and necessarie for the sonne to be obedient neither could he deny obedience without greate perill Contrarywise when they desire an vnseasonable thing and that which would haue beene an hinderance to spirituall thinges Who is my mother and my brethren quoth he For as yet they had not such opinion of him as they ought but Marie after the manner of mothers thought she should haue commanded her sonne in all thinges by her authoritie c. But the councell of Trent saith Bristow sheweth that she had more neede of Christes grace then all other saints to preserue her from sinne But in the meane time she had no neede of his redemption for the remission of sinne who was appoynted to saue his people from their sinnes who came to seeke and to saue that which was lost both of the house of Israel and of the Gentiles so many as attained saluatiō So therefore howsoeuer Bristow scorneth at my diuinity I will still conclude that the virgin Mary beeing so principal a persō of Christs people was saued from her sinnes by the redemption of his bloode was lost but sought vp and saued by him Which diuinitie being taken out of the scriptures I trust is more commendable then the contrarie doctrine deriued from the Pelagians and defended by the Papistes The 10. poynt of mine ignorance is about the definition of an heretike whom I saide to be a man in the Church I haue shewed before that I distinguish betweene him that is in the Church and him that is of the Church a Papiste an Anabaptist may be in the Church but they cannot be of the Church except they repent Where I added vnto my definitiō that if any of vs can be proued obstinately to mainteine our opinion contrarie to the doctrine of the scriptures we refuse not to be counted heretikes Bristow saith they may say the like But the triall is all Bristow saith they bring plaine scriptures to proue that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions is the doctrine of the scriptures And we say the same that whatsoeuer the Apostles deliuered in speech they deliuered also in writing and neither contrarie to other But that all true doctrine necessarie to saluation is not conteined in the scriptures that you proue not neither that such things were of the Apostles deliuerie as you call traditions of the Apostles As for the particular poyntes you prate of concerning the time of the Churches persecution and Antichristes raigne haue beene answered in their proper places The wordes of Christ This is my body we acknowledge to be true in such sense as he spake them neither can you prooue that they importe your carnall Carpernaiticall presence what you hold of Iustification by workes Worshipping of Images Insufficiencie of Christes redemption Impeccabilitie of Marie c. contrarie to the expresse and plaine textes of the scripture it were out of place here o make rehersall The 11. is mine ignorance in wondring at Allen for saying that a christian scholer should first beleeue and after seeke for vnderstāding he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there haue I answered The 12. poynt proceedeth of like ignorance where I am said to wonder when I heare that the sacrifice of the masse is a likenesse of the sacrifice of Christs death vpon the crosse And then I am asked whether I know not that sacramentes are not likenesses of other thinges and Augustine is called to witnesse with much adoe as though it is all one to haue sacramentes which are similitudes of Christs death and to haue a sacrifice of similitude or likenesse which I saide truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that there should be any shadowes or resemblances when the body and substance it selfe is come which I spake supposing that Allen by likenes of the exemplar meaneth the masse with all the apish pageants thereof to be like the sacrifice of Christes death And indeede it was that monstruous saying of Allen which I wondered at By likenesse of the exemplar as indeede being in an other maner the verie selfe-same But Bristow setting a good countenance vpon so great an absurditie asketh what boy hath not hearde it saide of one the same man being changed by age sicknesse apparel shauing c. he is like or vnlike himselfe But tontrariewise what boy in Oxford or Cambridge would not reply that this similitude or likenesse or vnlikenesse is of two seuerall shapes and not of one and the same substance vnto it selfe as Allen saith the sacrament is like the body of Christ and is the very same in another maner that is vnder couerture of accidentes that belong to another kinde of substance But Bristowe is not so quicke to vnderstand me where I vnderstand not my selfe as he weeneth where I say neither will it helpe that Allen saith it is the selfesame in another manner so longe as the same respect remaineth I am sorie that Bristowe is so dull headed that he cannot vnderstand what the same respecte meaneth in opposition which if it not obserued in the thinges opposed they are not alwayes opposite and specially relatiues who hange altogether vpon respect But Bristowe asketh who can imagine that the verie same respecte remaineth when the same manner doth not remaine Why sir what is the respect of the likenesse of the sacrifice of the masse with the exemplar seeing you confesse the manner tobe vnlike but the verie identitie of the thing sacrificed which is the monster that I maruaile at as also that you cannot imagine the same respect where there is not the same manner Is not God the father of our Lord Christ in the same respect that Abraham is the father of Isaak but yet after a farre other manner yea to follow your owne wise examples is not Abraham father of Isaak in the same respecte when Isaak is yonge and when he is olde when he
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
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
rules enacted by Parliament for condemning heresie if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect and not deride them like a scornefull traitor he might vnderstand that the three later are not contrarie to the first which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture which is declared either in the 4. first general councels or in any other generall councell agreeing with the scripture or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter Not that the Parliament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie or to make any thing heresie which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures What if I woulde not were I worse then the Thessalonians or Bereans which dayly searched the scriptures to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture saith Bristowe and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth Gal. 1. which was of preaching as if it were of onely scripture I aunswere my wordes are these if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth he is to be accursed but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God since the Apostles departure but the canonicall scriptures which doe containe al that they preached the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of saluatioÌ„ then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels 〈…〉 he see apostolike and succession of bishops with a note 〈◊〉 the ende what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence whereof if I had any couler my selfe 〈…〉 o mountybanke pedler is so facing and boasting as I â—nd my fellowes As franke as I seeme in renouncing â—hat goodly euidence I trust to be carefull enough to â—olde fast the euidence of eternall life which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God and if I and my fellowes boast in â—hem because our boasting is in God I doubt not but â—ee shal be better accepted of him then they that count â—hat boasting a stale exception and boast in vanitie 〈…〉 ust in lying and at least make flesh for their arme â—heir heart departeth from the liuing God 4 Against the fathers Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares 〈…〉 ter Christ because I knowe they cannot yet in that 〈…〉 allenge I say nothing contradictorie to my former 〈…〉 ssertion that onely the worde of God conteined in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures is the iudge of all doctrine and tryall of trueth and stay of a Christian mans conscience against any thing that is taught to be beleeued vnto saluation or concerning the worship of God either contrary to it or beside it But Fulkes two onelyes sayeth Bristowe namely onely the moste auncient Church and only Scripture are vtterly without all ground and but 〈…〉 eere voluntarie If it be without grounde to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof let euery Christian conscience consider As for the voluntarinesse â—f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie beâ—ause you will not accept them let your will stande in 〈…〉 eede of reason but if you call them voluntarie because you neede not accept them and yet approue your selues good Christians remember who it is that sayth my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come when you will not be tyed to the most auncient Churches testimony and the eldest writers of the same Nowe concerning other by quarrels and cauils whereas I sayde Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures wee receiue it with their praise and whatsoeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures we refuse with their leaue Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures But who made him so priuie of my meaning my wordes import no such thing for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian that which I spake of all the fathers in generall Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani non vt canonicas habeo sed eaâ— ex canonicâ—â— considero quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non congruit cuâ— pace eius respuo I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall but I consider them by the canonicall and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I receiue it with his praise but that which agreeth not I refuse it with his leaue I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly by that which agreeth with the Scripture to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes Where I sayde that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest worde of God and the credite of the Apostles there is no cause that we should be carryed away with them Bristowe sayeth in the margent aâ— though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles when wee saye The Apostles haue not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings you aunswere but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men is not to be receiued he noteth our absurditie because not onelye Melancton and such like as Allen hath tolde â—s were mortall men but also in the same terme of mortall men are the Apostles them selues comprehended And what of this Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton or of Peter and Paul as they were mortall men No verily Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone and the onely author of the doctrine whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste and therefore their writings wee receiue as the worde of God which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles Where I sayde We dare not depend vppon any one manâ—â—udgement for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde Bristowe answereth Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time yea and â—ith Christ him selfe and yet to winne such persons both the Apostles and Christ him selfe condescended to them accordingly And why do not you follow the example of Christ of his Apostles to winne so many thousandes as doe refuse
by this argument The scripture testifieth that all which the Apostles taught was first taught of Christ himself before theÌ„ Heb. 2. but whatsoeuer Christ taught is written in the Gospel Luk. 1. Act. 5. Iohn 20. c. therefore whatsoeuer the Apâ—stles taught is written And therfore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition receiued by preaching iâ— bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures giuen by the same spirit The fourth text iâ— 2. Tim. 3. which I alledge in these words saith Bristow Purg. 410. All goodworkes are taught by the scriptures which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes First he taketh exception that these are not the wordes of S. Paul Indeede my wordes are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded vpon the scripture which Bristowe suppresseth But supposing that Saint Paul had saide so what a fonde reasoning is this saith Bristoâ— because one euidence proueth all therefore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely Sir if one euidence prooue all that which is not prooued by that euidence is not prooued at all But if to prooue that which is prooued alreadie by that one euidence you haue other good euidence no man letteth you to vse them Wherefore this is no fond kinde of resoning Maister Brâ—stow but such as the best Logicians do teach All good workes are taught by the scriptures therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures is no good worke But nowe S. Paul saith not that all good workes are taught by the scripture saith Bristowe Hee saith the scriptures are profitable he saith not are able or sufficient to teach all good works Againe he speaketh only of the worke of an Euangelist and not of all good workes To this I aunswere that immediately before Paul saide The scriptures are able to make Timothie wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesu but no man can bee wise vnto saluation but he that knoweth all good workes meete for a Christian man to doe therefore all good workes meete for a Christian man to do may be learned by the scripture And euen in this very text where he saith Al the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of trueth to disprouing of falshoode to correcting of vices to instructing in righteousnes that the man of God that is the Euangelist be perfect furnished to euerie good worke although you restraine euerie worke to the only worke of an Euangelist yet that I saide is necessarily concluded thereof For it is some part of an Euangelists worke to giue example in all good workes that are meet to be done by other men but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished c. therefore all good workes are taught by the scripture Againe when all the office of an Euangelist which consisteth in teaching disputing correcting instructing in righteousnes may be perfectly furnisht at the scriptures what can be more playne to prooue that nothing ought to bee taught for truth disprooued for error corrected for vice instructed for righteousnesse but that which is taught disproued corrected instructed out of the holy scriptures Seeing therfore that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead is not taught by the scripture it is no trueth To deny prayer to be profitable for the deade is not disproued by the scripture therefore it is no error To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture therfore it is no vice MeÌ„ are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead therefore it is no worke of righteousnes The 5. 6. texts I alledge together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures and trie the spirites to proue that the certeintie of trueth in vnderstanding the Scriptures is not to be had but by the spirite and the spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures Against this conference Bristow saieth Who euer alledged Scripture more blindly And why so I pray you because Christ saieth in the same place that Iohn did beare witnesse to the truth My workes doe beare witnesse of me Also My father who hath sent mee hee hath giuen witnesse of mee In dèed 〈◊〉 Bristowe could proue that Iohn Baptist Christes miracles or God his father did testifie any thing of him which was not before contained in the Scriptures neither had Christ giuen a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures neither is that sentence able to proue that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture But if the testimonie of Iohn of the workes of God the father do all confirme the Scriptures who euer alledged scripture more blindly then Bristow to proue that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the newe Testament the old when Christ sendeth the Iewes to the old Testament as a sufficient witnesse of him Concerning the triall of spirits Bristow biddeth me looke in the text by this we knowe a spirit of trueth a spirite of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles I like it very well For where shall wee heare the Apostles speaking but in their writings in the other holy writings according to which they spake all that they taught Wherfore here is no tryall of the spirites but by the scriptures And where he sayeth the Romanes doe moste manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles because no man can name that time the noueltie the seducer that they went after although it were true that no man could in any point shew as he sayeth yet the argument is naught seeing it is proued by the Apostles writings that they holde many things not onely beside but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles The 7. text iâ— Pur. 285. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes and a lanterne vnto our feere therefore wee will not walke in the darknesse of manâ— traditions The faithfull testimonie of Gods word only giueth true light vnto the eyes But the Prophet sayeth Bristow neither hath the worde only nor saith that Gods word is not but in writing for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles To the fiâ—st quarrell I aunswere that I alledge not the wordes of the Prophet but his meaning which Bristowe cannot denye to be the onely worde of God that giueth 〈…〉 ue light to the eyes That Gods worde is not but in 〈…〉 riting I neuer sayde or thought but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of Gods worde but in the Scripture I affirme 〈…〉 nd that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before conteined though not so clearely in the lawe 〈…〉 nd the Prophets Last of all you alledge and saye against Iudas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus saith Bristowe Pur. 210. In the law not so much â—s one pinne of the tabernacle was omitted lest any â—hing might be left to the will of man to deuise in the worship of God You shall not doe sayth the Lorde what seemeth good in your
which then did persecute the church of God in some places in generall the citie of the diuel that is to saye the whole body of the reprobat Bristowe asketh if it be not a perillous point to touch the citie of Rome in saint Iohns time when it did persecute the church of Rome As though S. Iohn telleth a storie of his owne time and not a prophecy of the time to come Ambrose therfore or whosoeuer writeth that coÌ„mentarie interpreteth that prophecy Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the citie of Rome which was not onely of persecution but of seduction But the vndoubted Ambrose if you remember sayeth Bristowe of the church of Rome sayeth In al things I couet to followe the Romane church De sac lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bounde to followe the church of Rome he sayeth immediately after Sed tamen nos homine sensum habemus c. But yet we being men haue vnderstanding Therefore that which is more rightly obserued elsewhere we also do rightly obserue We follow the Apostle Peter him selfe we sticke vnto his deuotion what doth the church of Rome answere to this Verily Peter him selfe which was a priest of the church of Rome is author to vs of this assertion In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in that they vsed not to wash mens feete in baptisme Vniustly indeede he vrgeth that ceremonie as necessarie but yet he sheweth that his iudgement was that the church of Rome might receiue a custome contrarie to yâ— scripture Beside this saith Bristow he calleth Peter the first the foundation in the verie same place where say you Pur. 320 he affirmeth that Peter is not the foundation Howsoeuer I deale with my reader you deale vnfaithfully with me for my wordes are these He affirmeth the not Peter but the faith the confession of Peter is the foundation of the church and that the primacy of Peter was a primacie of faith not of honour of confession not of autoritie or higher order De incaern dom Ca. 4. 5. Ambrose his words are Cap. 4. Vos autem c. But what do you say of mee Immediatly Peter being not vnmindful of his place he exercised the primacy The primacie of confessing truely not of honor the primacie of faith not of order or degree And Cap. 5. Faith is the foundation of the church For it was not said of Peters flesh but of his faith that the gates of death shal not preuailc against it his confession ouercommeth hel The former of these places Brist corrupteth by adding this worde worldly to the words of Ambrose honor degree aâ— though Ambrose had meant that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor degree being equal to his fellowes in worldly honour and degree But such folly was farr froÌ„ Ambrose to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor degree when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignitie at all But he expresseth wherein all his primacie was when he sayeth he was first in confession first in protestation of his faith not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellowes who all helde the same faith and confession And this of Peters person neuer a worde of his successours which yet are not onely the bishops of Rome when they were at the best but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles Hierom Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places in which the Apostles sat in person but by authoritie of teaching receiued from them with soundnes of doctrine To the later place Bristow saith the diuel may preuaile against the fleshe of a Pope but his faith but his confession as well in all articles that be nowe in coÌ„trouersie as in those at that time wil stand when they shall all be sonke downe into their due place But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of euery bishop of Romes faith and confession but onely of the singular faith and confession of Peter Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God which is against all sectes and heresies Dies me citius c. the day should sooner faile mee then the names of heretikes and diuers sectes Yet this faith is generall against them all that Christ is the sonne of God both sempiternall of his father and also borne of the virgine Let nowe the reader iudge whether of vs hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose Fourthly he gathereth that I saye in diuerse places that Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Alexandrinus Cyprianus the Councell of Africa and Socrates the historiographer did preach or write against the Popes authoritie when it first began to aduance it selfe in Victor Cornelius Stephanus Anastasius Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus To this Bristow answereth First that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church therfore I am against my selfe in making other Popes to be antichrist for claiming such authoritie as these did Whereto I replye the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discouer the mysterie of iniquitie those later Popes that are antichrists did openly shewe them selues in the temple of God as God and therefore great difference Secondly Bristowe answereth that all those writers did communicate with those Popes therefore our separation cannot be excused I replye their ambitious vsurpation tended not to heresie and therfore they were content to admonish them but the latter Popes from whome we dissent are fallen into open heresie and apostasie Thirdly he saith that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authoritie as he wil shewe of Irenaeus Polycrates Dionysius Cyprian Cap. 10. in 28. demaunde where I will shewe that they did write against such vniust authoritie as those bishops did claime Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place hee sayeth that hee exhorteth Cornelius to bee as stout in not loosing certeine African heretikes as their owne bishop had beene in bynding of them By which hee woulde haue men thinke that Cornelius had authoritie to vndoe that which Cyprian had done as the Pope in these dayes taketh vpon him But Cyprian yeldeth to no such authoritie but maruelleth that Cornelius was anye thing moued with the threatening of those heretiks to receiue them into his churâ—â— vnder pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediatly of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a fewe heretikes counting it sufficient that Cornelius knewe before that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa saying of their gadding to Rome Cùm statutum sit c. Seing it is decreede of vs all and that it is meete also right that euery mans cause shoulde be heard there wher his crime is committed and a portion of the flock is ascribed to euery pastor which euery one should rule and gouerne as he will giue an account of his doing to the Lord verily they ouer whome we are set must not gad about nor with
them for triall of the greatest controuersies that are betweene vs of iustification by grace and not by merite of workes of the Popes antichristian supremacie of the Lordes supper of worshipping of images and many other controuersies As for that brabbling of conuerting of nations by them or vs it is not worth the while but a matter of meere contention which can not be decided but by triall whether they or we holde the true faith of the Gospell for into that were all nations conuerted that were turned by the true Apostles As for the conuersion of any nation into false Christianitie proueth not the conuerters to be Apostles But Bristowe bragging of their wonderfull conuersion of nations of India and Affrica which no man reporteth but lying Friers and shamelesse Papistes seemeth to denie that any were conuerted vnto false religion by any false Apostles or Heretikes And first where I saide there are people in Aethiopia which by circumcision and obseruation of the lawe declare that they were conuerted by the false apostles Bristowe opposeth the authoritie of Eusebius reporting the conuersion of Aethiopia to haue beene of the right stampe c. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so smal a countrie that it were not possible for one peece to be conuerted into true Christianitie and another part into corrupt That there are such people as I saide Munster in his Geographie of Aethiopia doth testifie As for the fable of their Emperours submission and the Abbots approbation of Poperie in all pointes may serue to play mocke holiday among the Papistes they can haue no credite among vs. As great a mockerie it is that Bristow abuseth the saying of Irenaeus concerning the Church of Rome in his time lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua c. In which alwaies of them that are round about hath bene kept that tradition or deliuerie of doctrine which is from the Apostles But the praise of the Romane Church of that time is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time which hath forsaken that tradition and embraced newe doctrine neuer heard of from the Apostles daies vnto the time of Irenaeus Where I say it is manifest that the nations of the Alanes Gothes and Vandales were first conuerted by the Arrians Bristowe replieth that in so saying I declare that I neuer read the ecclesiastical stories such is Bristows Logike It were possible I had read them and forgotten them But what could I either reade or remember in the places by him quoted First Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said that Vlphilas Bishop of the Gothes assented to an Arrian or neutrall confession giuen at Constantinople whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus which was Bishop of the Gothes and being present in the Nicene Councel had subscribed thereto he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice First of the Alanes Vandales here is no word nor in any of the places folowing of the Gothes it is said that Theophilus sometime their Bishop was of right faith and Vlphilas also before his subscription and consequently a fewe that were conuerted to Christianitie before the heresie of Arius But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Gothes that was conuerted and of the second also lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted There were two nations of the Gothes the one gouerned by Phritigernes the other by Athanarichus Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus sought aide of Valens the Arrian Emperor and obtaining it put Athanarichus to flight Quae causa fuit c. Which was the cause saith Socrates that verie manie of the Barbarians receiued the Christian faith For Phritigernes that he might shewe him selfe thankefull for his benefite receiued of the Emperor beganne to embrace his religion and to exhort his people to doe the same And for that cause manie Gothes which then to please the Emperors humour had addicted them selues to the Arrian sect vnto this time cleaue fast vnto it At the same time Vâ—philâ—s Bishop of the Gothes inuented the Gothian letters and as soone as he had turned the holie Scripture into their tongue he purposed that the barbarous people should learne the holie Oracles of God But as soone as Vlphâ—las had taught the Christian religion not onely to them which obeyed Phritigernes but also to them that were vnder Athanarichus the same Athanarichus mouing persecution put to death diuers of the Arrian sect c. The same historie reheâ—rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion At verò non istam c. But truely I doe not thinke that this was the onely cause whie the whole nation of the Gothes vnto this time is adioyned to the Arrians but that Vlphilas their bishop although in the beginning he dissented nothing from the Catholike Church yet afterward in the reigne of Constantius through lacke of knowledge he was present at the Councel held at Constantinople with Eudoxius and Acacius which were of the number of Bishops that had bene in the Nicen Councel And so being become an Arrian separated the whole nation of Gothes froÌ„ the Catholike faith This storie sheweth that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conuersion of the Gothes for Vlphilas the Bishop of those fewe that were before that time christened being long before peruerted into Arrianisme was the principall cause of turning both the nations vnto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme But Theodoret â—aith Bristowe lib. 〈◊〉 ca. 37. Who was a Catholike Bishop of purpose to take from the Arrians that vaine bragge of theirs sheweth that the Gothes were first Catholikes and not as you say first conuerted by the Arrians but only by false informations too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas being an other Balaam lead out of the way This purpose Bristowe dreameth of for no such appeareth in his wordes cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium c But my thinke I shall do a thing worth the labour if I shal shew to them that knowe not howe the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians And then sheweth that by persuasion of Eudoxius Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Gothes which before were lightened with the beames of diuine knowledge entred into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens and so deceiued the whole nation Where Theodoret saith nothing contrarie to other histories which shewe that Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Gothes that was vnder him vnto Arrianisme and after Vlphâ—las turned the other nation the was vnder Athanarichus vnto the same corrupt forme of Christianitie sauing that he is contrarie to Socrates and Sozomenus which affirme that Vlphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Councel of Constantinople in the daies of Constantius which reigned before Valens manie yeres That I said of them that were conuerted by the Nouatians and Donatists Purg. 337. Bristow vnderstaÌ„deth of whole nations requireth my histories autors to proue that I
succession being a grosse error I will not stand to confute because it is none of the principall matters in controuersie Where I saide that if succession of persons and places were sufficient the Greeke Church is able to name as many as the Latine Church and in as orderly succession Ar. 27. Bristowe asketh what of that but onely this that they therefore may better claime the Church than we Yes this one thing more that by this my shewing of succession in the Greeke Church which you can not denie Allen is bound to recant and that the Greekes by title of succession may claime the Church as well as you But those hereticall and schismaticall Greekes saith Bristowe can no more shewe succession than your false Bishops which are in the sees of Poole Bonner Thirlby c and yet I â—roâ—e he will not thereby claime succession We may by as good right as you claime succession to the Apostles and godly Bishop of Rome whome you succeede not in doctrine For neither haue you any right succession but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church Boniface the third and his fellowes But Gregorie saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Church of Rome But so doth not the Councels of Constantinople which before Gregories time decreed that the Church of Constantinople should be equall in all thinges with the Church of Rome the title of senioritie onely reserued because Constantinople was newe Rome Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop 1. ca. 2. c. In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolike see where I say it auaileth not the Papistes that the Church was planted at Rome by the Apostles except they can proue succession of doctrine as well as of men Bristowe saith In prouing the succession of men only we do as much as the Fathers did But I say that is false for the fathers alledge succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding In the 45 Demaund of chaunging where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge witnessing that Gregorie was the first that compelled Priestes to liue vnmarried Bristowe answereth that seeing I confesst that he reuoked his error he made no change froÌ„ his fathers faith Yes sir although he reuoked his decree yet was the same receiued by them that came after him But the storie of that Epistle is derided by Cope which affirmeth that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. yeares before Vdalrichus was made Bishop Thus these impudent Papists when they can neither corrupt nor wrest to their purpose the monuments of antiquitie they will vtterly denie them Whereas the Papists contrarie to the old vsage of the Church by Allens confession doe absolue before satisfaction Bristowe saith both manners haue bene alwaies vsed and bringeth example of men absolued iâ— sicknesse which if they recouered performed their satisfaction after But Papistes absolue them that are in health before satisfaction which is contrarie to the old vsage Where I tell them that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregorie and Stephanus of Formosus Bristowe saith not one Pope hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine It were hard for him to proue that none of those Popes all whose actes their successors disanulled made any decrees of doctrine And certaine it is that Gregorie made decrees of doctrine or else the Popes Canon lawe doth lie al whose decrees yea and bookes also as containing heresie his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned But supposing saith he that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite both in opinion and in some secrete writing yet did he not change nor go about to change the Romanes into Monothelites What meant he then to write hereticall Epistles but to drawe other into his heresie Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople plainely discouer him to the Councel that he followed that heretikes minde in all things and confirmed these vngodly opinions Con. Constantin 6. Action 13. And to what end but betwene them to change the faith of the whole Church both of the East and of the West into Monothelitisme But that you may see a plaine contradictorie vnto Bristowes bolde and lying affirmation I will rehearse the wordes of Pope Leo the second in his Epistle vnto the same Councel Act. 18. Pariterque anathematizamus c. Also we accurse the inuentors of the newe error c. naming them among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolike Church with doctrine of Aposto like tradition but by prophane treason did go about to ouerthrowe the immaculate faith Yet against al this testimonie of antiquitie Sander in his Monarchie proueth that Honorius was no Monothelite and that Iohn 22. did not as Caluine and we belie the storie denie the immortalitie of the soule and resurrection of the bodie neither was any such thing laide against him by his contentious enimies but whether the soules doe see God before the generall resurrection but he also denied that error c. To this I must needes say that Bristowe is either an ignorant reporter or an impudent lier except he will say that Caluine or some of vs wrote the report of the Councel of Constance where he was accused and conuicted by witnesse to haue denied the mortalitie of the soule and the resurrection of the body and life euerlasting Session II. And in the next Session he confessed that the Councel of Constance was most holie and could not erre As for the assertion of Pope Ioane the feminine Pope I referre the reader to Maister Iewels replie to Harding where he proueth it by auncienter testes than Martinus Polonus howe so euer Bristowe sawe it in a marginall note I wot not where not in what Protestantes hand as he reporteth In the sixe and fourtie Demaund of our auncetors saued or damned he maruelleth where my wit was when I alledged against Canonization the example of burning Hermannus the heretike in Ferraria where he was worshipped twentie yeares Apocryphally But if he had not bene canonized as you say where was the Popes care of the Church that so neare him in Italie he would suffer such grosse idolatrie so long time to be committed and continued Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negatiue the affirmatiue that he was canonized which so long had bene worshipped without contradiction is more probable seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any vngodly vsage so long to be vncontrolled Where I saide the Papistes can not proue that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles principall Martyrs Bristowe asketh if making of holie daies and to name them in diptychis among Saintes in the holy Canon of the Masse is not proofe sufficient of their canonization No sir if that be canonization which your late Canons and practise doth allowe but if it were I say the Apostles and principal Martyrs had daies of remembrance of their godly life and doctrine names
as they write of be orderly successions By the time of these Fathers saith Bristowe there had bene foure schismes Ar. 85. Aunswere In the first proposition I speake of Tertullians time and succession of doctrine and name succession simplie In the second proposition I speake of the whole time vntill our dayes and of succession of persons and of orderly succession therefore no contradiction The fourth It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles it retained by succession that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contra he chargeth it with sundrie errors here cap. 3. 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes and eight Popes for the supremacie I might aunswere that the charging of the Popes chargeth not the Church but in the first proposition I spake of the Church of Rome in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian holding the doctrine of the Apostles contrarie to those heresies against which they write The fift It was a true Church and Apostolike Church a faithfull Church true and Apostolike faith and religion haue dwelled in her Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra The Church of Rome neuer preached the trueth She neuer had since she first arose the ministring of sacraments according to Christes institution The true Catholike Church hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes But the Popish Church was neuer able to encounter with heretikes Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns but neuer did good to Christians I am able to proue that the primitiue Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27. The latter part of this contradiction with as many falsifications as there be quotations doe sufficiently declare that in all those places I speake of the Popishe Church of Rome that nowe is and not of the true Church which of olde time was at Rome Yet to giue the reader a taste of his falsification of my wordes Ar. 106. which hee rehearseth thus Rome may be a nurse c. in truth they are these Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of mans traditions in steade of the milke of Gods worde and will rather see them famish than they should taste of Gods worde may well bee a nurse of Antichristians but neuer did good vnto Christians The sixt The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie whereof the whore beareth a cuppe full out of which all nations haue dronke Ar. 102. 38. Euen from the Apostles â—ime the diuell neuer left to set in his foote for his sonne Antichristes dominion vntill he had placed him in the temple of God and prepared the wide world for his walke and then came the generall defection Pur. 287. Contra all nations neuer consented to the doctrine of the Papistes For it hath bene often saide the Greeke Church and all other Orientall Churches of Assa and Africa neuer receiued the Popish religion in many chiefe points and specially in acknowledging the Popes authoritie they will not vnto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholike nor her authoritie to be lawfull Ar. 38. 16 33. 34. These places being both full of falsifications yet if they had bene in so many wordes set downe by me imploy no contradiction For it may be that all nâ—tions meaning as the scripture whose wordes I cite Apoc. 18. not all of euerie nation but some of all nations haue dronke of the whores cup and yet neuer receiued her religion in al things And the general defection is meant of that great apostasie that S. Paul speaketh of in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ though they fall not all to the Pope For many are fallen to Mahomet many reuolted to idolatrie many to other heresies beside Poperie The 7. The religion of Papistes came in and preuailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his AntichristiaÌ„ exaltatioÌ„ to wit Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the heade of all the Church Ar. 36. Contra in the same place Because you speak of the first entring of Popish religion which dependeth chiefly vpon the Popes authoritie it first beganne to aduaunce it selfe in Victor about the yeare of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here Popish religion in one piece first beganne to aduaunce it selfe Anno 200. and after came in and preuailed Anno 607. The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie Euen in the Apostles time and from that time in all times when so euer and where so euer was any piece of myste or darke corner there were the steppes of your walke It may be a shame for you Papistes to leaue and condemne for heresie all that is true in the Fathers writings and agreeable to the scriptures Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papistes from the great heresies and open aduersaries that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith as the Valentinians Marcionistes Manichees Arrians Sabellians and such like monsters Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction which is not of the religion of the Papistes but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the auncient Fathers which among the Papistes are growne to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians Marcionistes c. And yet there can be no contradiction where the subiectes of both propositions are not all one But here the one is of the Popish Church which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan the other is of the religion of Papistes The Papistes by communion of the diuels Church communicate with all heresies The 9. We say not that the religion of Papistes came in soudenly but that it entred by small degrees at the first and therefore â—aâ—â—esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies not preached against winked at because it had a shewe of Pietie and Charitie and at length allowed of Augustine and others who followed the common errors of their time Specially when a generall defection and departing from the faith was foreshewed what marueile were it if none colde preach against it as it first entred Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra The Church of Christ in such places as she is suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion without open reprehension Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries as that I should say The religion of papistes was not preached against c. Winked at c. Allowed of Augustine c. For I neuer said so of the whole religion of papists but of some fewe errors budding vp in antient times But both Ar. 36. where I aske What maruaile c. as an obiection I doe neuerthelesse shewe who preached against the vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome which yet tended not to a damnable error Ar. 38. I affirme there was both preaching
of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned