Bristowe saith that may be and yet the Church not be in their sight a contemptible companie no more then the olde Romanes and Turkes are to vs though we contemne their religion I aunswere I speake of the contempt of the Church not of the persons of men which often times are great Emperors and princes of the world To the place Matth. 10. You shal be hated of all men 〈…〉 r my names sake Bristowe inferreth the company that 〈◊〉 hated is not alwayes contemptible I confesse neither â—id I bring that texte but to shewe the perpetuall hatred â—f the world against the Church But Cyprian writeth â—hat Decius was more patient to heare that an Emperor 〈…〉 as set vp against him then that an other priest should â—e ordeined at Rome in the place of Fabianus This saith â—ristowe was not contempt but of feare Although I â—eny not but tyrants feare the church of God more then â—hey haue cause in respect of their earthly kingdome 〈…〉 t it followeth not but they do also contemne it and 〈…〉 inke their power greater and their glorie superior vntâ— it And in the example of Decius his indignation was â—he greater because the base and contemptible compaâ—y of the Church as he esteemed them durst choose an â—ther Bishop after he had slaine Fabianus purposing to â—estroy the Church vtterly That I alledge 1. Cor. 1. Not many wise men c. He â—â—yeth it was so in the beginning of the Church but not â—lwayes And so I do blindly alledge the text againste â—y selfe Because afterwarde the text saith the wise themâ—â—lues and the strong were confounded that is to saye conuerted 〈◊〉 deede if confusion and conuersion be all one it is â—â—mewhat that you saye but howe will the text beare â—â—at beside the improprietie of the speach that God hath 〈…〉 osen the foolishe things of the worlde that he might â—onuert the wisemen and the weake that he might conâ—ert the strong Last of all God hath chosen the inno 〈…〉 e and contemptible things of the worlde and those â—hings which are not that he might destroy those things â—at are As you say to confound is to conuert so you here best saye to destroy is to saue or else you cannot â—â—rooue the multitude of wise noble and honourable â—ersons that God hath chosen to be greater then those â—hat are reiected As for the textes of Esay 60. 10. â—ited by you and mee speake of the spirituall glorye of the Church not deliuering her from the contemptof the worlde where and among whome shee is a stranger That the church was and also should become inuisiblâ— Concerning the inuisiblenes of the church Bristowe sayeth I alledge so as no sober man would so that â—elike he wil driue me to purge my self of drunkennesse as the Apostles were fainâ— to doâ— Act 2. But what saye 〈◊〉 not sounding of sobrâ—â—tie One while that the vniuersall church of Christ is not seene at all of men because it is in heauen Gal. 4. And here he asketh if euery member be not in heaueÌ„ as the Apostle fayth Our conuersation is in heauen Phil. 3. and Peter the Apostle wâ—â— seene of all men I answere although men be seene iâ— earth yet their conuersation which is in heauen is not seene nor they them selues as they are in heauen with Christ which is our life Col. 3. ver 3. c. So much moâ—â— the vniuersall church being a spirituall coniunction oâ— all the members vnto Christ their head in heauen is noâ— to be seene with bodily eyes vpon earth But another while I say Ar. 80. it sufficeth that the church be knowne to Christ the head as he sayeth My sheepe heare my voice and I know them and to them yâ— be the members of the same body Here Bristowe quarelleth with me if your text import that it sufficeth to be knowne to the head why doe you iumble in the members afterward whether he be sober that vnderstandeâ—â— not a copulatiue proposition let wise men iudge And yet the text proueth as wel the sheepe to knowe one another by hearing Christes voice as Christe knowiâ—g them by his diuine election and prouidence But Bâ—â—stowe so great a craftes man of good conclusions d 〈…〉 deth this consequence Christ knoweth his sheepe 〈◊〉 the church forsooth may be inuisible and so he may for it is of his owne making and not of mine I had no more to proue but that Christ should not be head of an vnknowen body because he knoweth his owne body and the members knowe one another although neither he nor they be knowen vnto the worlde Yet another while I alledge that though not alway◠〈…〉 et at one certeine time it should become inuisible at 〈…〉 he comming of Antichrist or rather when Antichrist 〈…〉 at h preuailed I speake of the church in this world of the inuisiblenes vnto the wicked world what scripâ—ures haue you for that sayth Bristowe Ar. 27. 77. It â—as propheciâ—d that the church should flye into the Wildernesse The defection which saint Paul speaketh of concerning the churches inuisiblenesse I haue proâ—ed howe substantiall the argument is before Cap. 7. Par. 4. But nowe Bristowe opposeth scriptures to proue â—hat the church in the time of Antichrist should be both â—isible and vniuersall For there shal be preaching all the time of persecution by the true witnesses Apoc. 11. euen 1260. dayes or 42. monethes which commeth to three yeares and an halfe But after they be slaine and â—lye vnburied 3. dayes and an halfe which is also the time of Antichristes tyranny and the greatest ruffe of â—is crueltie who shall preache then openly against Antichrist for of such preaching we speake But lest you should imagine these dayes to be common dayes of 24. houres long as you seeme to doe of the 1260. dayes c. you may see that the inhabitants of the earth could not haue time to publish their death and send giftes c. in so short a season as three dayes and an halfe of naturall dayes account But you say the preaching shall be as generall as the persecution That cannot be of so smal 2 number of witnesses For that you quote Apoc. 14. pertaineth to the time of Antichristes consumption towarde the end and his final destruction for immediatly followeth the Angell shewing the fall of Babylon Last of all you obiect Apoc. 20. that the persecutors being in number as the sande of the Sea shall ouer the wide worlde compasse the campe of the faithfull the citie of God therfore the church shal be at the same time vniuersal super latitudinem terrae I doubt not but the church shal be vniuersall in her greatest straits dispersed ouer all the earth when shee is fled into the wildernes which signifieth her desolate condition not her place wout the world but neither of both is proued by the text before alledged For it followeth not although thâ— enimies with their multitude shall come
are sanctified you are iustified by the name of our Lord Iesus and by the spirit of our God By which he plainely sheweth that although they were baptized long before and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme yet the cleannesse of their washing the holinesse of their sanctification the righteousnesse of their iustification they retained still and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end So that while Bristowe as he doth alwaies chargeth me with ignorance not knowing what is meant by their making perfect he incurreth great forgetfulnesse euen of the Apostles words where he expouÌ„deth which are not onely he hath made perfect but he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme which no logike can proue yet it followeth that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme are made perfect not for a moment as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach from which perfection they fall immediatlie and must recouer it by masses and as Bristowe saith by penance c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered hath made perfect for euer all those that are sanctified That the purpose of the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth let him beleeue that can thinke the greatest part of his disputation for the abolishing of all ceremonies and sacrifices of the lawe to be idle and beside his purpose Likewise that if they fall he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme but remedie he telleth them none Verily there is no remedie for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vnto themseues by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite that he telleth no remedie by repentance from particular faulles and daylie offences when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ Hebrews 10. verse 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance verse 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vs to repentance Verses 5. 6. 7. c. But I shewe great ignorance where I conclude that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse No but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer from the onely once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to haue many ministers and many ministeries as it were conduites to deriue his purchase his redemption to his people In deede if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vnto all his elect he had neede of many conduites such as you speake of for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man but the vertue of the Holie Ghost The ministerie of man is such as man can execute that is by the worde audible and visible to speake to the eares and eyes of men and beeing â—â—iâ—red vp by the holy spirite to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God But you thinke to auoyde exclamation if you ascribe nothing to any man nor any thing but from that Priest and from that sacrifice as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice and bestowe it vpon any man or thing without commission yea against commaundement and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice which being once offered neede noe more to be repeated The scriptures thus examined he commeth to the doctors And first to Augustine or rather Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. 292. to proue that the olde doctors vsinge the name of sacrifice ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ because he calleth it Sacrificium panis vini the sacrifice of bread and wine Bristowe replieth that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body bloode of Christ wherein as it is cited by him so is it answered by me cap. 6. of this booke Secondly where he saith In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing commemoration c. Bristow replieth that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euideÌ„tly shewed what is giuen for vs he is announced alreadie killed But because this is nothing to the purpose he compareth it to the martyrdomes of Peter Paule commemorated vpon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades there seene and visited A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome so many Churches of Peter and Paule as haue presently or haue had in times past reliques of their bones were greatly deceiued For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome his nether iawe with his bearde is at Poyters and many of both their bones at Triers Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua where it was tried to be a good pumice stone The second doctor is August de ciui dei lib. 22. cap. 10. saying the martyrs are that body which is offered in sacrifice whereof I conclude that it is not the naturall body of Christ but his mysticall body which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Bristowe answereth that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natuâ—ll body But Augustine neuer saith that the naturall body of Christ is offered but expressing what body is offered sheweth that the mysticall body is offered Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body in offering whereof for his Church he offered his Church to God with it But how proueth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church which before he had purged by his sacrifice he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vnto God The third doctor is Tertullian which saith that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded Bristow saith That in the name of that prayer he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vnto vs after the gospell Dominus vobiscuÌ„ oremus let vs pray immediatly goeth to the bread and wine c. You may thinke I iest they be the very words of Bristow and his onely answere Yea but there be reasons of this saying Because that pure
with his censure was countermanded by many Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did countermaund him or gaue him contrarie commaundement to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie and loue of his neighbour Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things wherein they differed declared that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought but that the Bishop of Rome might erre The other example I brought was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome misliked by Dionysius Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 c. sharply reproued by Cyprian accusing him of presumption and contumacie Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus and almost all the Churches of Asia thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes should be baptized againe Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant nor so presumptuous that he would say he held the primacie and that other men should obey him as his inferiors Bristowe saith none of these denied the primacie of Peter I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie although Cyprian in the same place saith For neither Peter whom our lord chose first which argueth no primacie but of order vpō whom he builded his Church when Paule did afterward dissent from him about circumcision did boast him self or take vpon him any thing insolently or arrogantly that he should say he held the primacie and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie and certaintie of trueth against al men But Bristowe saith when there was no remedie but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them they did like Catholike men for all their Councels conforme their newe practise to the old custome and quoteth August de bapt cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. 25. where there is no such matter also he referreth vs to his fift Demaund where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement being admonished in a vision and that he had learned that not nowe onely but of olde time both in Aphrica and other places the trueth was receiued c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes if they dissented from the bishop of Rome there is no word The place of Hierome ad Euagrium which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church against a custome of the Church of Rome Bristowe saith doth not proue a Church a rule of trueth and Christianitie without the bishop and Church of Rome because Hierome saith as also there I cite Nec altera c. we must not thinke that there is one Church of the citie of Rome and an other of all the world c. By which wordes he sheweth that the Church of Rome if she will be a member of the Catholike Church must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome Where I say we beleeue the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ vnto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth Bristowe obiecteth suppose that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime as farre as the Church reacheth To this impossible supposition I aunswere that one King should haue no more authoritie than euerie King hath nowe But Bristowe obiecteth that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers c. Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike I would pull them downe In the motiue of Apes he discharged me from being a Puritane by his censure but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre that I should also be a traitour as he and all his fellowes are To his wise obiection I aunswere that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers so they are no Ecclesiasticall but ciuill Magistrates and the Church may be without them as it was many hundreth yeares Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians they haue chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had Dauid Solomon Iehosophat Ezechias Iosias c. But Christ professing that all power is giuen him Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie he might commit what authoritie he would and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe teach and baptize◠and to one of them singularly feede my lambes and my sheepe No maruel though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe Christ saide to one feede my lambes and sheepe therefore he saide it singularly and he hath vniuersall charge and all his successors to But for the Popes supremacie the Apostle saith expresly 1. Cor. 12. the heade vnder Christ can not say to the feete you are not necessarie to me But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse vnder Christ when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and the whole church also is like If you seeke the head of euery seuerall congregation you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof but if you seeke the head of the whole Church the scripture teacheth but one which is Christ for one head vnder another in one whole body is monstrous But you thinke perhaps Christ as he is head of his Church may say to the feete he hath no neede of them and therefore it must be vnderstoode of an head vnder Christ but then you must remember that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe yet as he vouchsafeth to take vpon him this office to be head of the Church he is not perfect without al his members which is the singular comfort of Gods children Ephe. 1. ver last But Saint Paule Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith vnder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie This cause is a shameles and senseles lie for no antiquitie for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed the see or the decrees therof Again what reason is it that Peters successors should be included more thē the successors of the other Apostles seeing this souereigntie of Peter is not grounded vpon his Apostleship but vpon his Bishoplike office as Sander maintaineth As for the principalitie of Apostleship principalitie of the Apostles chaire which he quoteth out of August de bapt Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. epi. 162. haue often bene shewed to be vnsufficient to make euery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in
out of her secret place in the wildernes into the open sight of the world againe Ar. 16. 27. 79. 36. Contra Diuers times it was bold to chalenge preaching ministring of the sacrameÌ„tes yea and so boldly that it cost many of the chalengers their liues As Berengarius Brumo Marsilius de Padua Ioannes de Gaudano Ioannes Wickleue Waldo Ioannes Hus Ieronymus de Praga c. Ar. 77. The onely shew of contradiction is a falsification of of Bristow reporting my wordes Where all this while c. As though the Church hath alwaies bin so hidden the no members thereof might appeare But those wordes be of his own cauillous coÌ„positioÌ„ not of my writing But here beside the contradiction he noteth two thinges against me One that it cost not all these yea verie fewe of these there liues Neither did I say it cost al but many to iustifie this multitude Iohn Hus and Hierom are expressed beside many hundrethes that are conteined vnder c. The other matter is that neither these before appearing were secret protestans but open papistes Belike he would beare vs in hand that their open appearing conuersioÌ„ from popery was both in a moment of time But what if some of them were first papistes and afterward returned from popery to the catholike Church as Hus Hierom being conuerted by certaine Englishmen yet weere they not al such for Waldo was neuer any papist but a christian Catholike who seeing the horrible enormities of the Romish synagogue openly with many thowsands I renouÌ„ced her communion when she would not be reformed at his godly preaching 20 To bring her againe into open light Which is now brought to passe in our dayes Ar 16. 9â— Contra from the yere of our Lord 1414. being the time of the Councell of Constance the bright beames of the Gospell haue shined in the world Ar. 36. I see no signe of coÌ„tradictioÌ„ in these words except these propositioÌ„s be coÌ„tradictorie The bright beames of the sun do shine in the morning before the sun be ful risen the same is seene in opeÌ„ light after he is fully riseÌ„ aboue the earth The 21 The reuelation of Antichrist with the Churches flight into the wildernes was An. 607. when Bonifacius the 3. c. For vntill then the mysterie of iniquitie was preparing for his reuelation coÌ„ming for the generall defection Ar. 38. 36 16. Contra She hath not decaied there in the wildernes but beene alwayes preserued vntill God should reueile Antichrist which is now brought to passe in our dayes Ar. 16. The reuelation of the mystery of iniquitie was when Antichrist himselfe did opeÌ„ly shew that iniquitie which before was not throughly discouered God reueileth Antichrist when he openeth vnto men his horrible wickednes which to them were vnknowne A wonderfull contradiction of Antichrist reueiling himselfe and God reueiling Antichrist The 22 The Churches being in the wildernes was to be out of the sight knowledg of the wicked Ar. 27. 95. Contra speaking of the same space She was narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long seasoÌ„ Againe Although it were knowne to the papists yet it was in Italie when Marsilius of Padua preached in Fraunce when Waldo in England when Wickleue in Bohemia when Hus and Ierom of Prage did florish Why all these were well knowne to the papistes As though the Church could not be persecuted in her meÌ„bers except she were al knowneÌ„ or knowne to be the Church by her persecutors 23 A rule of the LogiciaÌ„s No man knoweth a relatiue except he know the correlatiue thereof Therefore though Christ had a body in earth yet could it be known of none but such as knew Christ the head of that body of whom the papistes were ignorant A 1. 80. Contra Our Church is now againe brought to light and knowledge of the world Ar. 96. So that now belike the papistes know Christ or the Logicians rule is verified onely for the time of the Churches being in the wildernes according as in other places he moderateth the matter saying We beleeue that the Church is not alwayes knowne to the wicked vpon earth Pur. 150. Ar. 77. 79 80. Whether the papistes know Christ or no certaine it is they will not acknowledg him who came into the world which was made by him and yet the world knew him not whom they would not acknowledge The papists cannot say they know not our Church although they will not acknowledge her to be the true Church and so my saying is true that our Church is brought into knowledg euen of the world of papistes The rules of LogiciaÌ„s are alway true but they are often ill kept by popish sophisters as the rules of coÌ„tradictioÌ„ here by Bristow 24 We beleeue that the vniuersal Church is not seene at all of men because it is in heauen Pur. 405. Ar. 95. 82. 74 80. Contra Our Church when it was most hidden might rightly be called Catholike that is vniuersall c. Here Cap. 10. Dem. 6 And whereas you say that no man aliue could name the place where it was you make an impudâ—nt lye For although it were vnknowen to the Papistes and enimies thereof yet was it knowen to the true members thereof I see no opposition except you will say there is no knowledge but by bodilie sight or that some members of the Church may not be seene in earth because Ierusalem the mother of vs all is aboue 25 And as for our Mother Church is no certaine place or coÌ„panie of men in any one place vpon earth but Ierusalem which is aboue is mother of vs all Pur. 377 Contra That no man aliue could name the place where it was is an impudent lie It was in Italie when Marsilius preached c. Vt suprà in contrad 22. Christe hath neuer wanted his spouse in earth though the blinde worlde when they see her will not acknowledge her to bee his spouse but persecute her as if she were an adultresse She was knowne to them that were her children The church of Christ is the nurse of Christians Ierusalem that is from aboue is mother of vs all Ar. 95 79 82. 106. Those are as great contradictions as these Bristowe is at Louane Bristowes foote is in his shooe The whole Church and mysticall body of Christ is in heauen therfore some members and parts therof can not be on earth 26 It is not called Catholike because it should be euery where For that it neuer was nor neuer shall be Ar. 95. Contra It should ouerflowe and fill all the world with righteousnesse Esai 10. That God hath an holie vniuersall congregation it is necessarie to beleeue It is dispersed in many places ouer all the world Ar. 73. 83. 80. It is not euery where and it is in many places be not contradictorie And the remnant may ouerflowe and fill the world with righteousnesse as Esai saith although it fill not euery place and person thereof nor
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
at the Emperors charges for the encrease of Christian faith among them Bristowe asketh me what Emperor or what faith but Catholike or Popish That which I saide of the Syrian Testament was to shewe that the Churches in Chaldea haue preserued the scriptures which yet are not subiect to the Church of Rome with the Emperors profession I delt not but his purpose I suppose was to encrease Christian faith and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not encrease Popish faith seeing Papists are so vnwilling that the people should read the worde of God in the natiue language Fourthly that I say the fathers alledging the succession of Bishops against heretikes specially named the Church of Rome because those heretikes for the most part had ben somtimes of the Church of Rome as Valentinus Marciō Nouatus Against this Bristowe telleth me that Allen speaketh also of the Arrians Donatists and al heretikes But I spake of those fathers that alledged the succession of Bishops namely Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion that they were at Rome vnder Hyginus Pius and Anicetus and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession and yet taught his heresie priuily and was excommunicated For Nouatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome Eusebius is cleare Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus whereas Nouatus had beene of Carthage but from thence was also gone to Rome I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greeke writers to be deceiued as Bristowe saith and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Nouatus and the other called Nouatus in steade of Nauatus which name was then in vse But seeing the person of the heretike is certaine it is folly to striue for his name I haue shewed mine authour for Nouatus 〈◊〉 Rome and so for the rest wherefore I haue not bewraied any ignorance therein as Bristowe pretendeth The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is where I shewe wherein the communion of Saintes consisteth In that I say one can not merit for an other no not for him selfe but euery man hath his worthinesse of Christe As though saith Bristowe neither Christ could merite for any other no nor for him selfe because he had his worthinesse of God But I say that Christ because he was God had his worthinesse of him selfe and therefore did merite for vs. And see what secret blasphemie is contained in this comparison of Bristowe Where he would make a similitude of meriting betweene vs which please not God but onely through his mercy with Christe who satisfied the iustice of God But Bristowe chargeth me so to define the cōmunion of Saints that I allow no place for the praiers of the members aliue made for others that are aliue A vile slander when I speake of the grace and giftes of God which as euery one hath receiued of God so of charitie he is bound to imploy the same to the profite of his fellowe members here on earth But if we be bound of charitie to pray one for an other saith Bristowe whie are not these members in heauen as well Because there is not a lawe appointed for them that are in heauen and them that be in earth we knowe praier is commaunded vs we knowe not any praier commaunded them neither are we to trust to any such thing But the Scripture saith that Christes friendes doe reioice in heauen with his penitents in earth It saith so in deede of the Angels and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirites but of their knowledge and if their knowledge were certaine yet it followeth not that they pray for the conuersion of sinners and much lesse that the mutuall offices of loue whereby one member hath compassion with an other can by any meanes touch the state of the deade to receiue any benefite thereby But an other quarrell is where I make the communion of the whole body to be the participation of life from Christ the head If this be all saith Bristow then there is no communion For what communion were it betweene the members of your naturall body if they did onely receiue life from your head and could not vse the saide life to profite one an other c. This man hath great leasure to trifle without any matter Who so shall reade my wordes Pur. 199. which he quoteth shall finde me to say That the communion of the whole body is the participation of life and all other offices of life that euery member and the whole body hath of the head as S. Paule teacheth plainely Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life for one member to assist an other in that it may and as it ought I haue comprehended it but that Bristowe doth wilfully holde my saying and then play with it at his pleasure Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen that he will haue other workes waies of saluation besides the bloud of Christ because he groundeth all works and waies of saluation in the bloud of Christ. But I reporting his words truly by plain distribution do gather that Allen will haue other workes and waies of saluation beside the bloud of Christ except you will say that is no way nor worke of saluation of it selfe without these waies and works of men If the bloud of Christ of it selfe be one way and worke of saluation and there be other waies and workes though grounded in it then are there more waies and workes of saluation than the onely redemption of Christe which I vnderstand by the bloud of Christ so I haue done Allen no iniurie but he hath offered hainous iniurie to the bloud of Christe and so doe al they which mixed it with any to purchase Gods fauour who is reconciled by none other merite or satisfaction but only by the bloud of the crosse of his Sonne our Lorde Iesus Christe to whome be praise for euer more In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion Bristowe doth only shew that there is in my two bookes stuffe ynough to make an other booke as bigge as this to the discredit of my partie I trust this booke of his as bigge as it is hath wrought no discredite to the cause I maintaine because I haue shewed howe it is stuffed with lies slaunders falsifications and cauillations such stuffe he may haue great store in the diuell his maisters schoole to make a booke tenne times as bigge as this was but for so much as he hath not aunswered any one of mine arguments or refelled any one of mine aunsweres to Allen in any right order leauing the defence of him as he pretendeth to defend the Church I confesse he hath left matter sufficient for any man that will vndertake the confutation of my bookes which this his vnorderly and vnsufficient replie notwithstanding I protest to remaine still in their strength and
euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh â—ee which is more Catholike CAP. X. Sand. The signification of aduerbes discussed Hard. By these words really substantially c. The fathers meant only a trueth of being and not a meane of being after carnall or naturall wise Iew. All aduerbs taken of nownes signifie euermore a qualitie and neuer the substance Sand. An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioined to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification thereof which if it signifie a substance the aduerbe doth make it to signifie the same substance more perfectly As Your God is verily the God of Gods This man was verily the sonne of God Fulk The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance but the maner of trueth which is a qualitie Sand. Christ walked corporally vpon the water that is in trueth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed maner as other mens bodyes are wont to walke Fulk Yes verily he walked vpon the water as other men walked on the drie lande giuing strength to the water to beare him not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed who walked likewise on the water Sand. The maner of the walking did exceede the maner of a meere naturall bodie Fulk TheÌ„ belike Peter had not a meere natural body Hard. When the fathers teach Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes Saint Hilarie and S. Cyril haue then they meane that Christ is in vs by the true substance of his flesh and not in such maner as common flesh is wont to be any where Iewel The fathers meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall and naturall manner and not in substance Fulke Yea after some kinde of corporall c. manner that is truely soundly and not shadowedly effectually c. not after euery corporall carnall or naturall manner Sand. The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in vs without the substance of his bodie and bloode Fulke But the general qualities of a bodie of flesh c. may be in vs as in their subiect without the proper subiect of Christes bodie and blood Sand. S. Hilarie saith Christ hath the father in him according to the spirit naturally Hath Christ a qualitie and not the whole true substance Fulk The question is not what he hath but what he hath by force of the aduerbe naturally which is not of force to giue him the whole substance but signifie that hee hath it after the manner of nature which is truely Sand. Hilarie saith he tarieth in vs naturally Fulk That is truly which is some maner of naturall being Sand. He saith further he is in vs himselfe by flesh Fulk Which he tooke of vs and doth againe giue vnto vs. Sand. And againe Naturally according to the flesh we liue by him that is to say wee haue obteined the nature of his flesh Fulk I aske no better interpreter then Hilarie him selfe Whosoeuer liueth by him hath obteined the nature of his fleshe which is able to giue life but manye liue by him which hath not receiued the supper therfore Hilarie speaketh not of giuing the substance of his flesh in the supper as Sander vnderstandeth but of giuing the nature of his fleshe which is power of life confirmed to vs by the sacramentes of his supper and baptisme CAP. XI Sand. Of the first author of the Sacramentarie heresie Hard. Berengarius began first openly to shewe the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes bodie in the sacrament Iew. Before master Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Sand. The Messalians began priuilie by generall disgracing the sacrament Berengarius began openly by speciall denying the vertue thereof Fulk The Messalians spake as openly as Berengarius and he that vtterly denieth the sacrament to be of any vertue taketh away the special vertue also wherefore Hardings tales agree not but that is a small matter Iew. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteined the same doctrine before Beâ—â—ngarius Sand. If they barked in corners at any ceremonie which is not euident to vs yet they mainteined it not For then they had ben condemned of heresie by them you haue gained litle more then 200. yeres Fulke They preached and wrote openly the one of them dedicating his booke to the Emperor which is extant the other condemned in the Councell of Vercells holden against Berengarius But while they liued their doctrine therein was not controlled Two hundreth yeeres is small gaine to vs which count from the beginning but it is great losse to you that build vpon antiquitie not regarding how it came from the beginning Iewell It shal be necessarie to open Berengarius iudgment Sand. It is ynough you are at a staye and can bring your faith no higher then Ioannes Scotus and Berengarius Fulke We beginne at Christ and bring downe the continuance of our faith herein for 600. yeres and more which you cannot impugne Iewell This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius I beleeue that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sensiblie and in verie deede is touched with the hande of the Priest and broken and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull Sand. You haue Englished the wordes very spightfully you haue added Rent of your own head Atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to bee wasted which may be done without grinding Fulk What great spight is in Rent more then in Broken and why should alteri signifie to be broken wheÌ„ we had the word broken before and what honestie is it for you to say the body of Christ may be wasted with the teeth Finally when you haue dentibus halteri I meruaile why you dare not say ground except it be that you teach the people to swallow the cake and not to grind it with their teeth Iewell The verie glosse saith vnlesse you warely vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie then euer he helde any Sand. The glosse telleth you that al touching breaking or washing is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine Fulke Then the confession of Berengarius was false that the body is touched broken grinded with teeth Iewel These fathers redresse the lesse error by the greater Sand. They teach him to speake as Chrysostome hath spoken in Ioan. Hom. 45. Non se c Christ permitteth himselfe not onely to bee seene to them that desire but also to be touched and to be eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh all men to be filled with desire of him Fulke Chrysostome speaketh figuratiuely except you will say it is a proper speech that Christ is seene in the Sacrament These fathers abhorre all figuratiue speaches in this case and it is nothing like that a recantation of a figuratiue vnderstanding should be expressed by
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life
deprauing M. Iewels meaning which is that Christ in deede not phantastically or imaginatiuely but truely after a wonderful manner hath ioyned vs both body soule vnto himselfe by baptisme CAP. XX. Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. Fulke Euen as really as he dwelleth by baptisme none otherwise Sander He promiseth to declare that Christ dwelleth foure wayes in our body really when he commeth to the fourth way he spendeth all his strength to declare that Christs bodie is not really dwelling in our bodies Fulke I pitie your beggerly sophistrie grounded vpon the diuerse taking of the worde really CAP. XXI Sander That Christes bodie is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostomes wordes Harding By this Sacrament saith Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it were into one lump with himself and that not by faith only but he maketh vs his own bodie in deede Re ipsa which is no other to say then really Iewell This place would haue stand M. Harding in better steede if Chrysostome had said Christ mingleth his bodie with the Sacrament and driueth himselfe it into one lumpe Sander M. Iewel marketh not that Sacrament to be of it selfe the reall bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread wine therfore to say Christ is mingled with the sacrament were to say Christ is mingled with himselfe Fulke Sanders best argument is the whole matter in question alas poore wretched begger Iewell Neither wil M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simply without figure whereof it followeth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament Sander He meaneth that Christes own bodie is ioyned to ours simply without any figure of Rhetorike or Grammar but not without a mysticall figure Fulke If he meane that he mingleth himselfe with 〈◊〉 into one lump wtout al figure of Rhetorik then without all figure simply we are one lump with him as a lumpe of dough is one As for our wonderfull coniunction with him it is not that which is the figure but the mingling into one lumpe which are the words of Chrysostome Iewel It is a hot kind of speach such as Chrysostom was much delighted with It is a speach farre passing the common sense course of trueth Sander I thought you would bring it to a figure of speach but he taught it for a truth as we shal see anone Fulke As though an hyperbolical speach may not be true in any sense because it is not true in the common sense Iewell Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigor of the same speach by these words vt ita dicam which is as it were or if I may be bold so to say Sander In other places he vseth the terme of mingling without correction Fulke But in the same sense that he vseth it nowe with correction Sander The correction must be referred to the similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough wherunto he alludeth Fulke You are welcome home to a figuratiue speache Sander What if he vse no such correction or qualifying for as the edition of Parise doth witnesse his Greek wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himselfe with vs. Fulke If no other edition witnesse for the Latine translation let the translator answere for himself But his words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are most aptly translated in Latine subigit seipsum nobiscum he kneadeth himselfe with vs which if it be not a figuratiue speach I report me to you Iewell In such phrase Anacletus saith the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oyle Sander Pope Anacletus whose Epistle you esteeme as much as your shooe sole nameth not olcum oyle but holy chrisme Fulke And is not your chrisme oyle Although the Epistle be counterfeite and not worth a shooe latchet yet the phrase is vsed in it by him whosoeuer fained it and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation Iewel Alexander saith the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments Sander The worlde goeth hard with his note booke when he flieth to these decretall Epistles for the proofe of any thing especially for Latine phrases Fulke And why may not your owne suborned witnesses be examined to see if they can depose any thing against your owne selues that haue set vp such knightes of the post as those decretall Epistles are whome you your selfe flout for their Latine phrases which in deede can scarse keepe themselues within the bondes of congruitie Master Iewel hath plentifully displayed their forgerie so that he feareth not any mention of Masse or chrisme to be founde in them Iewell Nyssenus sayeth Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghoste Sander That saying prooueth that the grace of the holy ghost was really in S. Stephen as Christes body i◠really mingled with our bodies Fulke It might likewise prooue that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost for if you take grace for the fauor of God it was not really in Stephen but in the holy ghost himself If the one be absured so is the other except it be taken figuratiuely Iewel Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderfull coniunction which is betweene Christ and vs euen in one person Sander He confesseth more then we aske for we are not one person with Christ. Fulke Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity nor as his humanity assumpted into the deitie maketh one person with his death but as he is our head and the Church his body which is the fullnesse of him that filleth all in all things Where Sander confesseth the matter it is folly to striue for the phrase Iewell Leo saith the body of him that is regenerat is made the flesh of him that was crucified Sander Pope Leo speaketh of his mysticall flesh Fulke B. Leo speaketh of his naturall flesh but by a spirituall and mysticall kinde of making such as our regeneration is Iewell S. Augustine saith we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whole man Sander He saith not one whole man but the whole man Fulke What number is man Master Doctor the singular or the plurall Sander Hee speaketh of a mysticall body of diuerse members made vp and perfected into a whole collegiat body But Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning himselfe to euery faithfull man Fulke Sander vnderstandeth not the mysticall body of Christ which compareth it to a collegiat bodye or ciuill corporation with which it hath small similitude The scripture compareth it to a naturall body receiuing life and sense from the head Christes ioyning of himselfe to euery one of vs maketh vs all one body in him Iew. As we are by baptisme made Christes fleshe Christ in the same sense Chrysostome saith wee are made one lumpe with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himselfe with vs. Sand.
meaneth we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie Fulke He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances namely of the substance of our bodies with the substance of the bodie of Christ. Iewell The coniunction because it is spiritual true full and perfect is expressed by this terme corporall Sander As though God because he is spiritual true full and perfect he might therefore be called corporall Fulke As though that which is in somethings is necessarie to bee in all thinges and yet the Godhead which is spiritually truly fully and perfectly in Christ is said to be in him corporally Col. 2. Sander Who euer heard of such vanitie because it is spirituall it is termed corporall Fulke Who euer heard vainer sophistrie then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together Master Iewel addeth true full perfect Iewel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maneâ— light and accidentall ioyning Sander If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substantiall ioyning remaineth A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together Fulke The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned whome the spirite of Christe can couple though they be in place distant with an inseparable vnion Iewell It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs onely by receiuing the Sacrament Sander Neuer a father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your owne head Fulke All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vs corporally speake generally of all the members of the Church of which many haue not receiued the Sacrament therefore it is not by the Sacrament onely Sander Seeing wee cannot haue him corporally in vs without his bodie be within vs and yet none other thing is his bodie beside that which is deliuered at his supper by that meane onely hee may bee corporally in vs. Fulke Neuer a father by you named either sayeth or meaneth that any of your two propositions are true therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade Iewel By Master Hardings construction the childe is damned who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sander No Catholike doeth teache so Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion Fulke Ergo Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally Iewell Without naturall participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation Sander If it be so it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie Fulk It is so because Christ saith Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. and because it is so and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist This naturall participation eating of the flesh of Christ is not onely in the Eucharist Iewell S. Chrysostome saith In the Sacrament of baptisme we are made flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones Sander These wordes you haue not in Chrysostome Fulke You cauill at the forme of wordes whereupon M. Iewell standeth not when you cannot auoide the matter Sander He saith they that are partakers of the mysteries can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him Fulke That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only Sander Moreouer he giueth another sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum Fulke That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense Sander He sheweth that we are taken out of Christs side as Eua out of Adam Fulke If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Sander Although it were in him yet is it to no purpose for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ which may be meant of his mysticall flesh another thing to partake his flesh naturally We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes Fulke What can it bee to partake naturally his flesh if it be not to become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones you saye we may be made of his flesh by spirituall meanes what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones yea of his mysticall flesh What are we made mysticall flesh then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter Sander The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted sometime of baptisme sometime of Christes supper is because in the olde time in manye countries the Sacrament of Christes bodie was giuen straight after baptisme Fulke A wise reason why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments which was proper to one They were not ministred so neete in time but they could discerne what was common what was peculiar to either of them Iewel Master Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament Sander It is you that are not able to finde it for D. Harding hath founde it and I haue shewed it in Chrysostome S. Hilarie Gregorie Nyssen Fulke Let the readers iudge what you haue founde but vaine cauillations for neither the words nor the matters you haue shewed Sander So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great partly a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament Fulk So would I answere you sufficiently for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus but that I haue answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate Harding The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time haue vsed the termes really substantially c. to exclude metaphors and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ by meane of his naturall flesh really though not locally present Iewell These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming Sander Hee named none because your impudent proclamation bound him to the time Fulke He was not so bound to the time but he might haue named if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares Sander Damascen saith the bread wine water is supernaturally changed into the body bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh and these are aboue 700. yeres old speaking of transubstantiation Fulke Neither of both vseth the termes really substantially c. which is the matter in question And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation nor the Church of the Grecians whereof they were members vnto this day doth acknowledge