in the tables and at the celebration of the Lordes supper before canonization was thought to pertaine onely to the Pope As for our abrogating of Saintes dayes doth not disproue our Communion with the Saintes which is in consent of their faith not in celebrating of their feastes Concerning the canonization of King Henrie the sixt Bristowe requireth mine authour for a dilatorie plea because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption Mine authour is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henrie the seuenth where I said we acknowledge those to be Saintes whose names are written in the booke of life Bristowe like a blacke dogge scoffeth at it and saith we might doe well to set out that booke in print that they might correct their Calender by it Or else the Churches declaration is the most certaine way to knowe who are written in it If none should be written but such as the Pope doth canonize for that is your Churches declaration innumerable Papistes should haue no place therein and not onely Papistes but the true Saintes of God of whome not one among tenne thousand hath bene canonized Where I say the Popish Church doth iniurie to the Saintes of God that she doth not so account them while they liue Bristowe saith I would be called Saint Fulke by mine owne industrie and that out of hande Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scornes to delude the textes of Scripture which I cited to proue that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saintes euen in this life not by their owne industrie and merites but by the sanctification of the bloud of Christ. He is angrie that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their Goddes saying wee doe the like in canonizing our selues because wee account our selues Saintes and true Christians which is all one and because I shewe the emulation of the Bohemians in solemnizing the memories of Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage which differeth as much from Popish canonization as their faith and religion differeth from Poperie In the 47. Demand of cōmunion of Saints he boasteth of increase of Papists in England affirming that beside thē which are Catholike in heart and of their communion there be innumerable of them reconciled which he saith to prepare the minds of his friendes vnto their intended massacre and rebellion I suppose in deede there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors but yet not so many but they may be numbred But howe many so euer they are I doubt not but there are Christians of such number and power in England as are able to giue all the Papistes both on this side the sea and beyond it as blacke a day as the Popes armie found in Ireland if euer they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable deuises In the 48. Demaund where I shewe the fruites of the Gospell being vrged thereto by Allen Pur. 241. to appeare notably in the liberall prouision for the poore of all sorts in England and namely in the citie of London Bristowe calleth it beastly impudencie yet is he not able to name any Popish citie that maketh such prouision but falleth into open railing vpon the corrupt manners of all the citie as though for the fault of many which yet Gods name be praised are not the most the whole citie were not inferior to Sodome and Gomorrhe in wickednesse In which place as being very populous there are many offenders so are they punished if their offences may be knowne But who so knewe London in the time of Poperie and nowe also considereth the manners of the multitude must be a very vnequall iudge if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number though he can not see it all As for the citie of Rome which Bristowe compareth with Solomon whose Priestes were more excellēt than the report that went of him as by the storie and relation of them which knewe it before this time so by report of some which euen in this time haue visited the same we haue sufficient vnderstanding that without great reformation it still continueth the mother of all abhominations of the earth and reaching forth the cup of poisoned wine vnto such as seeke her whorish familiaritie maketh them therewith so drunke that there is no cause why Bristowe should maruell why nothing confirmeth more our countrimen in Poperie nor alienateth them from the Protestants than to goe and see Rome The eleuenth Chapter What grosse contradictions Fulke is driuen to vtter against him self while he struggleth against Gods Church and the doctrine thereof As in his whole replie he hath drawen almost all the arguments and authorities which I vsed in those two treatises vnto other endes and purposes than for which I brought them so to make a shewe of Contradiction he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places compareth them together to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth to thinke that I affirme and denie meere repugnancies without any possibilitie to reconcile them But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place in which they are written I hope there are not many of so meane iudgement but they will acknowledge they are rather the cauils of Bristowe than the contradictions of Fulke The first Contradiction he noteth that I say Art 96. You are neuer able to aunswere the arguments that Peter was neuer at Rome And thē where is the Apostolike see c. And thē on the conirarie side the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles it was an Apostolike Church For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I aunswere In the first part he falsifieth my wordes which are these You are neuer able to answere the arguments that are brought to proue that Peter was neuer Bishop at Rome and then where is all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession c. The Church of Rome might bee an Apostolike see though Peter was neuer there but all your bragges of Apostolike see and succession are vaine if Peter was neuer Bishop of Rome The second Those auncient Fathers did appeale to the iudgement of the Church of Rome against all heresies and among the Catholike Churches especially named the Church of Rome because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the bragge of the Romane faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine but patched by him yet if I graunt the sense and wordes to be as he hath forged them they are not contradictorie to the latter proposition For heretikes may bragge of that which Catholikes vse to doe and yet not be Catholikes The thirde It had by succession speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉 retained euen vntill their dayes that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 374. Contra She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishoppes except so many schismes
vp and as it were couer the face of the earth and so compasse the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie that therfore the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie is as large and as many in number as their enimies when experience proueth the contrary at this daye if all that be baptized were true Christians and the Church of Christ yet are they nothing in multitude in comparison of the Turkes and Infidels wherfore for any thing that is here shewed the Church should be inuisible to the worlde when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyrannie Namely of their church and of ours by conference of places that are about Antichrist That neither Antichrist nor the apostasie agreeth to Bonâ—face the third Being demaunded Ar. 35. what yeare the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed I answere that although many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church of Christ immediatly after the Apostles time which the diuell planted as a preparatiue for his eldest sonne Antichrist yet we may well saye that the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed that yeare in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation which was 607. when Boniface the third for a great summe of money obteined of Phocas the murthering Emperour that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the church which diuelish heresie increased vntill the yeare of our Lorde 1414. when the councell of Constance decreede that â—acrilege of the communion in one kinde Likewise Ar. 16. After I had shewed the persecution of the true Church vntill Constantine and soone after by the Arrians then the ouerthrowe of the Empire by the barbarous hereticall idolatrous nations I conclude But when Mahomet in the East and Antichrist the Pope in the West seduced the world with most detestable heresiâ— then was fulfilled that which was reuealed to S. Iohn Apoâ— 12. The woman clothed with the Sunne which is the Church was so persecuted by the dragon that shee fled into the Wildernesse there tâ— remaine a long season These sayings of mine Bristowe rehearseth cut off in the wast as though I referred the dragons persecution only to the Pope which I say plainly began before but was most perfect concerning the apostasie in the raigne of the popish Antichrist Againe he sayeth I doe apply this prophesie onely because of the Popes primacyâ— which is false but because of his false doctrine and heresie also For that he sayeth the Popes primacie is a trueth of the Gospell and practised before Bonifacius â—he referreth vs for proofe to Saunders tray terous booke of Monarchie and I for aunswere will send the reader â—o my ouerthrowe of his Romish Rocke The suppoâ—ed contradictions I referre alwayes to the proper place Cap. 11. But O sir where is the Scripture that you promised â—o bring so cleare c. sayth Bristowe Sir my promise was for articles of doctrine in controuersie between vs â—nd not for the fulfilling of euery prophesie which the â—ffect must better expound oftentimes then the words But furthermore sayth Bristow you make shewe of a â—ext which is against you and vse most detestable falâ—ification saying the Church should remaine in the wildernesse a long season but the text is cleane contraâ—y a very short season Say you so Bristowe where haue you these wordes in the text a very short season But you haue 1260. dayes and a time two times and â—alfe a time And can you tell vs the length of these â—imes or of the dayes either In the weekes of Daniell â—nto whome you referre the exposition of the two times for you haue not two times but times indefinitely in the reuelation the propheticall dayes are as long as common yeres As for the time two times and halfe a â—ime who is able to define the length of them But by Scripture you will proue a very short season and first you iumble together two diuerse prophecies of Apoc. 12. 20. of the loosing of Satan for a short season Why man short and long be Relatiues The time of Satans loosing is short in comparison either of the long time that he was bound or of the long and eternall time in which he shall remaine in perpetuall bondage For though Antichrist raigned in open reuelation and not in mysterie of iniquitie onely by the space of 807. yeares more or lesse and yet be not vtterly consumed but yet in his consumption Neuerthelesse for a whole 1000. yeares after Christ the gospell of saluation continued in the church though much defiled with superstition yet sounde in the onely foundation Christe openly testified by sundry publike teachers vntill Syluester the seconde Anno Domini 1000. by the diuell him selfe as euen the Popish stories confesse was put in possession of the See of Rome then was the church driuen into greater straightes then euer before the doctrine of saluation being turned into idolatry and blasphemie But it is monstrous that Bristow expoundeth the consummation of the 1000. yeares by the gospell speaking of the consummation of the worlde Matt. 24. Marke 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and Ierusalem with the ende of the worlde And where he citeth Matth. 42. staâ—iâ—â— post streight after the persecution of those short dayes considering that from the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the ende of the worlde so many hundreth yeares are passed he might learne at the lest not to measure the length and shortnesse of times by mens reckonings but to remember that with the Lorde a thousand yeres are as a day and a day as a thousand yeares 2. Pet. 3. His other patching of Centones like Valentinians in steede of conserence of scripture because they consist of his onely assertion without reason or authoritie I neede not to confute As that the dayly sacrifice which Daniel prophecieth should be taken awaye by the death of Christe Daniel the 9. 12. he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the Masse By the which â—aint Paul prophecied that wee shoulde announce our â—ordes death as though Saint Paul spake that of a saâ—rifice and not expresse of eating that bread and drinâ—ing that cuppe of the Lorde Like wise speaking of the abomination of desolatiâ—n he sayeth Daniel agreeth with the gospell the â—pocalips where he sayeth Daniel 12. From the time â—hen the dayly sacrifice shal be taken away and the abâ—omination set vp for desolation dayes 1290. Blessed is 〈…〉 e that expecteth and cometh to dayes 1335. What agreement is betwene 1260. dayes and these two numâ—ers beside that Daniel 9. the Angel sheweth that â—he abhominatian of desolation in the temple and the â—esolation shall continue euen to the consummation â—nd end Last of all he will prooue that the season is short â—ut of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians that they be not troubled as though the â—ay of the Lorde were then instant for Antichrist must â—irst be reuealed And
then in deede sayeth Bristowe â—he day of our Lorde is instant And howe knowe you â—hat For our Lorde Iesus Christe sayeth he will kill â—im with the breath of his mouth What immediatly Bristowe so soone as he is shewed openly will you â—llowe him no time to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signes and wonders shall he be killed before he haue practised all deceite of vnrighteousnes in them that perish to whome God shall â—ende the efficacie of errour that they may beleeue lying that all they which haue not beleeued the trueth but had pleasure in vnrighteoâ—snesse may be condemned This will aske a longer time then three yeares and an halfe of the Sunnes reuolution or 42. months of the Moones circuite It is not one mannes person or age that can suffice to deceiue all them that haue not beleeued the trueth His last conceite in distinguishing the apostasie from the reuealing of Antichrist by the token giuen of the abolishing of the Romane Empire which should come to passe before the reuealing but not before the apostasie because it is his owne drousie imagination without grounde I will not vouchsafe to confute especially seeing the Apostle ver 3. ioyneth the Apostasie and the reuelation immediately together Whether Antichrist or the Apostasie agree to the Protestantes In this title is nothing but surmises wherof he him selfe is vncerteine but for one place in the Apocalipse he would saye vnder the churches leaue that our heresie is the apostasie the place is in the first Vâ— of the Locustes and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9. where somethings agree and other things agree not c. But let him looke on the commentarie of Bullinger Alphonsus Chytraeus Iohn Bale and other and he shal finde a neerer agreement of that kingdome to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts the Monkes and Fryers then he can imagine vnto vs. I passe ouer the abomination of desolation which one while he maketh Luthers and Caluins inuentions another while the kings armes set in place of the moste sweete and glorious roode yea the image of a vile grassehopper in a church that is well knowen which is an vmbraticall desolation as the images of Iupiter and the Emperors were in the temple c. matters to be laughed at although perhaps he lye because he dare not name the church or else is afrayd it should be refourmed if any vaine painter hath set vp such images And yet what more common in Poperye then not onely to paint but also to carue the images of kings and noble mens armes euen vpon the roodeloft of the Churches where they were patrones At last hee challengeth mee to ioyne with him vppon his last demaund which is apostasie vnto which I haue aunswered long since Finally he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist by the commentarie which the scripture it selfe makes The seuen heads are seuen hilles vppon which the woman sitteth And they are seuen kings whereof fiue are falne which are the persecuâ—ing kings before the time when this was spoken What then One is presently who therefore is ment of the Romane Emperors and all other kings persecuting with them The other is not yet come and when he commeth he must remaine a short season who euidently is Antichrist in proper person This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope Nay sayth Bristowe for he must remaine not a long season as the fiue and as the one but a short season only three yeares and an halfe But where haue you the length of his continuance compared with the fiue and one All the time of the Churches persecution is but short in comparison of the infinite comfort that she shal haue euerlastingly though it be long in the iudgement of fleshe and blood measuring the time by the breuitie of mans life and the seasons of this worlde as Bristowe doeth the three yeares and an halfe But this is worthie to be noted that he expoundeth the sixt king for the whole state of Romane Emperors and other persecuting kings as he doeth the fiue kings that were past and yet against all reason and analogie wold haue the seuenth which is antichrist to be one singular man so to auoide that the whole rabble of Popes cannot be antichrist Nowe followeth the exposition of the tenne hornes which are tenne kings which haue not yet taken kingdome but they shall take power as kinges euen in one houre with the beast that is together with Antichrist sayth he to serue him as his feede knights I maruell whether he will not expound the houre in this place for the 24. part of a naturall daye For otherwise wee see by histories that the aduauncement of the Pope was the decay of the Empire in the West and with him arose a multitude of kings in euery prouince which before were subiect to one Emperour And so you see euidently sayth Bristowe by these seuen hilles thus expounded that the woman which sitteth vpon them is not so little a one as you do make her but that shee is Mundus impiorum the whole worlde of wicked men But where do we see this euident exposition of the seuen hilles wee haue seene the exposition of the seuen heades to bee seuen kings and also seuen hills but we see no exposition of the hills who must needs be taken in their proper sense because they are the exposition of anotheâ— figuratiue speach namely seuen heades But the woman you say is no little one which sitteth on the seuen hilles but the worlde of wicked men Let the holye ghost I pray you expounde the woman as well as the heades of her beast And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth This is a cleare exposition of the whore of Babylon the woman and as cleare a description of the citie of Rome which in that time had the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth and is the citie builded vppon seuen hilles before expounded to be one of the significations of the seuen heades a persecuter of the sainctes vnder the Emperors and a poisoneâ— and persecutor of the Church vnder the Popes And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition which I will prooue by this reason The whore of Babylon is a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kings of the earth but the whole worlde of wicked men is not a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kinges of the earth therfore the whore of Babylon is not the whole worlde of wicked men Againe The whore of Babylon is a citie situated vpon seuen hilles The whole worlde of wicked men is not a citie situate vppon seuen hils therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men The third part Concerning the question of purgatorie and first ab authoritate scripturae negatiuè I saide Purg. 44â— It is no good logike to conclude negatiuely of any one place or booke of scripture yet
All true doctrine is taught in the scripture Purgatorie is not taught in the scripture therefore purgatorie is no true doctrine Bristowe denyeth both the maior and minor The maior I haue prooued in this chapter part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church which I also confesse to be the true Church in the thirde counce 〈…〉 of Carthage and therefore it is canonicall if any other scripture be Canonicall Supposing that which is false that the Macabees were canonicall yet is not Purgatorie prooued by them prayer for the deade doeth not necessarily drawe purgatorie after it The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade yet they doe not receiue the doctrine of purgatorie But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical he citeth the third councel of Carthage wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon whereas wee knowe there are onely three namely the Prouerbes the Canticles and the Preacher Therefore that canon prooueth a manifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon and say they bee Canonicall if any other scripture bee Cano nicall The Councell of Laodicea more auncient nameth not the Machabees Hierome a Priest of Rome expressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall Praefatione â—n Prouerbia Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues doe minister which agree that they were writen by the spirite of man and not by the spirite of God To proceede Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie that wee may not praye for all men liuing I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death of which Iohn saith I say not that you shoulde pray for it or that any man should pray for it as your vulgar traÌ„slation hath it But howe it is prooued out of that place he saith neuer a worde Last of all purgatorie is taught saith Bristowe Specially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently that Martha and Marie as the scripture is manifest did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his bodie before the generall resurrection If that bee so manifest what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Martha woulde haue Christ to pray for when shee saide thus vnto him But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges thou shalte aske of God God will graunt thee To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place Thus farre Bristowe But I pray you sir why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so expounde the place Peraduenture they were not worth the naming But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the comming of Christe to all times after as though I sayd that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie as Allen impudently coniectureth that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their prayers made at his tombe where there is no mention of any prayers but of lamentation only I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or honestie or else lesse impudence malice But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine order as I aunswered Allen but in this confuse manner to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt and then to play with them at your pleasure 2 Ab authoritate scripturae affirmatiuè First about certaine foundations of purgatorie and prayer for the dead I saide the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall Veniall shewing that all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or veniall except the sinne against the holy ghost Bristowe saith that I here graunt the doctrine and yet deny the distinction which is vtterly false for that all sinnes deserue eternall death and yet be pardonable it ouerthroweth the doctrine and distinction both For the Papistes holde that there are some sinnes so small as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe extendeth not vnto eternall death saying that hanging on tree or crucifying is not eternal death and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21. Againe euery one in the saying of the Apostle is not meant of Christians but of them which trust in the lawe it selfe c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce Nequaquam moriemini Tush you shall not die the curse of God doeth not bring eternall death you neede not be so greatly affraide of it c But where learned you Bristowe that the curse of God which is vppon him that hangeth on tree is not a visible token that hee deserueth eternall death Is â—ot the text plaine against you Deut. 21. When a man â—ath sinned worthy of death and is iudged to death â—anged on the tree his carcase shall not remaine vppon 〈…〉 e tree but shal be buryed the same day for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath â—iuen thee to possesse He is not therefore accursed beâ—ause he is hanged on the tree if he were innocent but â—ecause he hath sinned worthie of death so is hanged 〈◊〉 which respecte our sauiour Christ being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree though most innocent in his owne person 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes became â—ccursed for vs not to discharge vs of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternall death but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall vppon an innocent person but 〈◊〉 redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe whiche wee â—aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifolde sinnes and transgressions And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e payne of eternall death I wishe euerie man 〈…〉 at will not bee deceyued with the flattering voyce 〈…〉 f the Serpent to giue eare to the worde of GOD â—here hee shall see that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people â—gainst idolaters cursers
of parents murtherers ince 〈…〉 uous persons remouers of their neighbours markes oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers c. and generally against all transgressours of the Lawe vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned â—n the same wordes ' that it is to the rest Marke also where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse proâ—eth all them that bee vnder the lawe to be subiectâ— vnto this curse howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous but continuing vnder the Lawe they may auoyde eternall death And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle is not meant of Christians I woulde knowe of him whether the Galathians to whome saint Paule writeth were not Christians but yet seduced by false Apostles to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe which as it was impossible so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ vnto the curse of God That true Christians are discharged of this curse it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction and not that the sinnes themselues deserue not euerlasting death though they bâ—â— neuer so small of their owne nature by the sentence of Gods curse which is a iust rewarde for transgression Heb. 2. The two other places that I cite for this purpose The soule that sinneth shall dye Ezech. 18. and the rewarde of sinne is death Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consummate gendreth death as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne not brought into acte to deserue death because shewing that the cause of mens destruction iâ— in themselues from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death Our sauiour Christe saith this is condemnation that light is come into the worlde and men haue loued darknes rather then light Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also of this place to conclude that condemnation perteineth not to men but where the light offered is refused or that if Christ had not come none had ben condemned Iohn 3. and likewise yea much rather wher Christ saith If I had not come and spoken vnto them they shoulde not haue had sinne Iohn 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement before Christ came But let vs examine his reason It is sinne saith he as soone as it is gendred but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred Therefore some sinne there is that gendreth notd eath The minor is false for Sainct Iames saying that sinne consummat gendreth death doth not say that sinne gendreth not death so soone as it is gendred But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the scripture hee addeth also an exception vnto sinne consummat that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death except the matter bee of weight accordingly For els that the lightnesse of the matter as an idle worde bringeth not death hee sufficiently signifieth in saying that in a weightie matter the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not These are his wordes by which you may see that without all shame hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames as hee can finde neuer a worde in hiâ— sounde like such 〈◊〉 saying But this is the manner of heretikes which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture and to inforce the wordes thereof against all equitie to signifie and say whatsoeuer it pleaseth them Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death I will proue out of his owne saying by this argument Whosoeuer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements deserueth eternall death Whosoeuer offendeth in one is guiltie of all therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one deserueth eternall death The maior I truste you will graunt The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and offende but in one pointe hee is guiltie of all Then seeing euerie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe as Sainct Iohn affirmeth Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes but also small sinnes wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake for bee the sinne neuer so small it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes which reason the Apostle vseth to prooue that hee which offendeth in one is guiltie of all And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe sufficiently proue that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall Whether after sinne remitted payne may remayne That God remitteth the punishment with the fault in respect whereof the punishment is due I proue by Ezek. 18. 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences that truely turneth vnto him bringing forth the fruits of repentance Bristow saith this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment whereby it would ensue that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet Psal 24. 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth and Lorde remember not our olde sinnes which are the prayers of the penitent to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes which once obtained they say The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs as farre as the East is from the West Psalme 102. That may bee saith Bristowe in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment I will proue that to bee false To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West is as farre as may bee but not to bee remoued from temporall punishment is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West But the whole Psalme saith Bristowe is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fauour by absolution but of our finall restitution which shall bee at the later day What can bee saide more absurdly Thankes are there giuen to GOD not onely for spirituall benefites but also for temporall The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them is there set forth which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth and East from West As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church vppon the feaste of Christs ascension to proue that it pertayneth altogether to the later day is as good as it is true â—hat the wordes there spoken are onely of our finall â—estitution at the later day To the example of the publican hee aunswereth â—hat there is no more saide but that hee went home â—ustified
requireth not the burthen of shirts of haire nor to be shutte vp in the streightes of a little cell neither doth he commaunde vs to sitte in obscure and darke caues This onely is that which is required of vs that we alwayes remember our sinnes He requireth onely compunction of the heart therefore he requireth no workes of satisfaction neither those nor any other Bristow will see nothing but the streight mourning of Monkes The worde onely is so litle for his purpose that he cannot see it And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can Chrysostome saith it is besides Gods commandement To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter I read of his teares I reade not of his satisfaction Bristowe replyeth that he saith immediatly before I finde not what he said I finde that he wept Wherevpon he will gather both confession and satisfaction necessarie I would faine see that collection in a syllogisme Surely if they were both necessarie S. Peter by iudgement of Ambrose lacked two necessarie pointes of repentance which Iudas had and yet obteyned not forgiuenesse But teares saith he are a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction And yet where Ambrose sayeth they obteine pardon Bristowe saith they are not sufficient so that Peter weeping hauing beside his inward contrition a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction had not that which wold serue But Br. leauing this place as obscure referreth vs to a plain place Ad vir Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime is necessary a passing great satisfactioÌ„ wherto I answered before that an heinous offeÌ„ce must be earnestly bewailed if the repentaÌ„ce be not couÌ„terfet Brist saith He doubted not of her repentance to be vnfeined What theÌ„ He exhorteth her to continue her repentance not for satisfaction to God whose iustice caÌ„not be saâ—isfied by mans worke but by her earnest sorrowe to satisfie the Church which was offended by her whoredome The fourth thing is pardons whereof Bristowe speaketh as he doth commonly with wonderfull confusion I saide the olde satisfaction was in respect of the offence vnto the Church and not to satisfie the iustice of God which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enioyned by the Church vpon good consideration might be and often was released by the Church as appeareth by many places of Cyprian which Bristowe citeth and many other but not by the Bishop only and this release or remission was called indulgence or pardon which is no more like to Popish pardons then the creaking of a goose is like the songe of a swanne But as for pardoning of sinne they affirmed that it was proper to God as Ambrose to the virgine Sticke to penance euen to the end of thy life and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day for he deceiueth thee that so promiseth the. For thou that hast in speciall sinned against the Lorde it is meete that of him only thou looke for remedy in the day of iudgement Bristowe saith He did binde her to penance all her life bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand as he bounde the Emperour Theodosius indefinitely and loosed him after eight moneths penance with a pardon Who seeth not quoth Bristow that all this maketh plainly for pardons But Ambrose telleth her not that he would not pardon her but that no man can pardon the offence committed against God and that if the Pope himselfe should promise to pardon her he should but deceiue her And yet the Church might pardon the offence and slander where with they were iustly offended by her whoredome and restore her to the Communion as I doubt not but they did although she should continue her repentance al the daies of her life when Ambrose did binde and loose the Emperor he did only vse the discipline of the Church to bring him to repentance that God might forgiue his sinnes not that he might make satisfaction for the slaughter of 7000. men of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. moneths penance but after such time seeing him to be sorrowfull in deede receiued him againe into the communion The place of Cyprian In Sermon de Lapsis is very cleare to shewe that God and not man forgiueth the sinnes Let no man deceiue himselfe let no man beguile himselfe only our Lord can giue mercy only he can graunt pardon to sinnes as beeing committed against him who hath borne our sinnes who hath suffered sorrow for vs whom God hath deliuered for our sinnes Man cannot be greater then God neither can the seruant by his indulgence remitt or â—orgiue that which by so greate offence is committed against the Lorde least this offence also be added to him that is fallen if he knowe not that it is foreshewed Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man Our Lorde must be entreated our Lorde must be pacified with our satisfaction which saith he doth denie that man that denieth him Against this so plaine a place Bristowe cauelleth that he speaketh to impenitents that trusted also in laie mens pardons which is false for they were not altogether impenitent but not sufficiently repentant neither did they trust in laie mens pardons but without dewe repentance tried made hast to be reconciled by entreaty of the Martyrs yet with the hurtfull facility of the priests whereof Cyprian complaineth Sic oportet Dei Sacerdotem So it behoueth the priest of God not to deceiue with the deceiuable yeâ—lding but to prouide with wholesome remedies As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristowe would haue to be noted were not pardons of sinnes but release of time of separation enioined by the Church to shewe repentance for their sinnes as I declared before Which is euen as auncient as the Gospell whereas popish pardons Apoena culpa are of a much newer stampe and contrary to the auncient custome in the giuers for they were geuen by the whole Church in the persons for they were giuen to men a liue only in the time for they were giuen but of a short time of penance enioyned in this life and not of so many thousand yeares c. in the thing released for they were neither pardons of punishment nor of sinne dewe to Gods iustice but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church when the Church was otherwise satisfied 7 Of Purgatorie of the Canonicall memento of oblations of sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church Bristowe chargeth me to vse the arguments from mens authoritie negatiuely which I my selfe confesse to be naught but he mistaketh the matter I saide the order of prayers and administration of the holie mysteries described by Iustinus and Tertullian doe sufficiently declare what was the vsage of the Christians in those purer times in which no mention beeing made of oblations and sacrifice for the deade it is certaine there was none vsed not onely because there is no mention but because those two
forth against Purgatory when I came to it Bristow saith I plainly confesse the contrary to wit a memory for the deade I said that for them that kill them selues that Councell decreed that no commemoration should be made Ca. 34. what this coÌ„memoration iâ— I said it appeareth in the next Canon where they cal it the commemoration of the holy oblation that is they decreed that no communion should be celebrated in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ no mention of them that so died should be in their thankesgiuing as was vsed for them that died well Out of the 3. Toletan Cap 22. I shewed that it was decreed that the bodies of the faithfull should be buried only with singing of psalmes which must be thought sufficient for all Christians this I said excluded both prayers and oblations for the deade Bristow cauelleth that although in carrying the corps to the grane they vsed to singe psalmes yet they might haue prayer oblation for their soules in the Church I answere the councell thinketh singingof psalmes sufficient for the office of their buriall therefore prayer and oblation were thought needelesse But that they had prayer and oblation in Spaine for the deade he would proue by a saying of Augustine De cur pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custome of the vniuersall Church is that in the prayers of the priest which are made to God at the altar the commendation also of the deade hath his place This commendation might be without prayer as in the olde liturgie the oblation for all the Patriarkes Prophets Apostles c. or if it were in speciall forme of prayer for the deade in Affrica it proueth not that it was in Spaine For Augustine speaketh of the vniuersall Church no farther then his owne knowledge or if it were in his time it might afterward be reformed in Spaine as diuers other errors were namely in that Councell of Toledo and other before it But Bristowe vrgeth me farther and saith I might as well say the Papists pray not for the deade because they carry the corps with psalmes But he will neuer see the litle worde only ioyned in the Canon to psalmes nor the sufficiency of the office for the buriall of all Christians Againe he demandeth of De profundis being a psalme Is it not a prayer for the deade trowe you I trowe no. Except all prayers that men make for them selues be prayers for the deade As for the buriall of papists claimed by ministers in England I thinke you belie them for they could be content you had all the obstinate papists in your bosome at Loueine quicke and deade But such as die among vs we are not nice in denying them buriall in the vsuall cemiteries although we communicate not with them in their life yet alwaies protesting that more seuere discipline were meete for them in their life and to be executed vpon them euen in their death after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor I saide farther that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funerall of Saint Augustine proueth that the sacrifice offred for the commending of his bodies deposition was the sacrifice of thanksgiuing Here first Bristowe accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity that I vnderstand deposition for the putting of his body by death where it is the laying downe of it in the earth as Leuatio corporis is the taking vp of Saints bodies or reliques a worshipfull witnesse of antiquity For Cyrillus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. Iulian. But marke how skillfully Bristowe expoundeth Possidonius saying The sacrifice was offred to God for the commending of his bodies deposition That is saith Bristowe expositione prima for the laying downe of it in the earth by burying Why might not his body be laide in the graue without a propiciatory sacrifice The second exposition is that by commending the deposition of his body which is the laying it downe in the graue he meaneth the commendation of his soule to God With such expositions hee may prooue what hee will out of the Doctors But to admitt this monstrous interpretation how agreeth it with popery or Augustines owne opinion that seing he was a perfect man died in persecution while his City was besieged the same day it was taken that any sacrifice should be offred for his soule seeing he himselfe saith it is iniury to pray for a Martyr De Verb. Ap. 517 But that prayers for the deade were vsed in Saint Augustines time and at the celebration of the Lords Supper it is not of me denied and therefore needed not of Bristowe to be proued But he will make me both answerer and replyer Because I graunt that S. Augustine prayed for his parent and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui a memorie of her to be a memorie for her as though she would haue her sonne to be a Chantrie Priest to sing for her First I say that if the Pope himselfe translate Memoriam sui a memorie for her the translation is false Secondly where he saith the sacrifice of our price was offered for her I shewed that before that so he called the celebration of the Lordes Supper vnderstanding it neuerthelesse not to bee the sacrifice it selfe that beeing once offered did perfectly redeeme vs but a memorie and thankesgiuing for the same as I shewed out of Augustine and other Doctours Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest vnto the leafe 327. Finally Bristowe citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers the whole Church doth obserue that for them which are departed in the communion of Christes bodie and bloud when at the healthfull sacrifice they are remembred in their place prayer is made and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also I answere this oblation being generall for all that are departed in the faith of Christ can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiuing considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine as they called it in remembrance of the onely and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ as S. Augustine calleth his propitiatorie sacrifice coulde be no propitiation but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prosperitie or praise August Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. 21. Contra aduers. Leg. Prophet lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19. 20. and many other places through out his workes Of particular Doctours Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead Bristowe citeth many places but without neede seeing I conâ—esse it but that he neuer doubted of Purgatorie that is not proued thereby The Grecians at this day deny Purgatorie yet do they allowpraier for the dead Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher Chapter 69. It is not incredible that such a thing is done euen after this life and whether it be so or no it may be enquired And either
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
saith The third Councel of Carthage did define that it is vnlawfull to pray to God the Some and GOD the holy Ghost The Councel of Carthage by that decree denied neither the person nor office of Christ nor of the holy Ghost therefore they held the foundation 49 Here cap. 8. he saith that the iust of the olde Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death but to heauen immediatly Contra The fierie and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise was taken away by the death of Christ when he opened Paradise yea the kingdome of heauen whereof Paradise was but a sacrament vnto all beleeuers so that the penitent theese had passage into Paradise The vertue of Christes death extendeth to the old fathers for their saluation as much as vnto vs yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdome of heauen was the death of Christ by Gods ordinance appointed to worke righteousnesse for all the elect as well before the time of his suffering as since 50 Who so denieth the authoritie of the holy scriptures thereby bewraieth him selfe to be an heretike Contra I say not this here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretike to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames. As Martine Luther and Illyricus for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing My words be not alledged truely in neither of both propositions In the former they are these I will not gainesay but whoso denieth c. I doe not alwaies affirme that I will not gainesay I may be in doubt But to graunt that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint Iames to be a counterfet was not accounted an heretike Shall other mens account be ioyned to mine affirmation to charge me with contradiction Againe the former proposition Who so denieth c. If it be affirmed must be vnderstoode of such as denie the scriptures which are once receiued generally because they are contrary to his opinion If he meane the contradiction to be for that I say I will not excuse Martine and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint Iames for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing I must tell him that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them neither is foolish curiosity like by heresie Last of al where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to auoide a shameful absurditie ensuing of his affirmation he plaieth his old parts first in falsifying my words where I say to reduce he saith to redeeme secondly he saith that Allen speaketh of him that nowe leadeth a godly life but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance or satisfaction of his lothsome life past The very words of Allen be these This our aduersarie Math. 5. here signifieth our brother which hath iust quarell against vs in iudgemēt for that we would not giue eare vnto him sharply admonishing vs of our faults being therefore an aduersary to our vices and fleshly conuersation In which sort to vs that are flesh and bloud and ready to euill from our youth all be aduersaries that preach Christ the amendment of licentious maners repentance of our lothsome life past or else vse against vs the rod of correction and bodily punishment that our soules may be saued in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kinde of aduersary Christ counselleth and commandeth vs for our great good to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitorie life least all these meanes which he wrought to reduce vs to the perfection of a Christian godly life be as it were a witnesse of our contempt and him selfe our accuser before the Iudge that shall so iustly reward euerie man according to his deedes that is Christe him selfe to whome the father hath giuen all iudgement Nowe the wordes in which I reproue this absurditie of Allen are these But before we goe any further let vs see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before There we were told that Purgatorie serueth but for veniall sinnes or else for such mortall sinnes as by forgiuenesse in this life obtained are made veniall trespasses But here not onely vices and fleshly conuersation but also contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our lothsome life past c. are saide to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatorie to the vttermost farthing then the which no vice is more mortall nor further from forgiuenesse For he that not onely leadeth a lothsome life but also contemneth all those meanes that Christ hath wrought to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life I vse his owne wordes howe can he haue remission of his sinnes in this life and yet Maister Allen dare promise him that the tolleration of bandes in the prison of Purgatorie shall recompence his debt and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ. The twelfth Chapter A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke that they which delight in such a Gardiner may see his handie worke The first flower is that I say Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onely by the high Priest once in the yeare But Bristowe saith that sacrifice propitiatorie and for sinne are all one which sacrifice for sinne was offered not onely once in the yeare in the seast of expiation but also in many other feast dayes ordinarily and extraordinarily when so euer any occasion was ministred c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance or his malice Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie vnto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death Heb. 9 with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne saying they are all one When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie that the high Priest that day onely entreth into the holiest place that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel for all their sinnes once a yeare Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation of this principall sacrifice which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onely true sacrifice propitiatorie which our Sauiour Christ offered on the crosse once for al which proportion is obserued by the Apostle Heb 9. ver 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. c. Heb. 10. ver 11. 12. But where Bristow saith beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice Fulke findeth none but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe he affirmeth that which was neither said of me nor is truely collected of him For I saide that Cyprian in these termes sacrifice priest
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
inwarde and outward which we must vse when we come to worship Christ himselfe CAP. II. The adoration of Christs bodie is proued againe out of the Prophet Dauid Psal. 98. The Latine text is Exaltate DominuÌ„ DeuÌ„ nostrum 〈◊〉 scabellum peduÌ„ eius quoniam sanctuÌ„ est Exalt the Lord our God worship his footstoole because it is holy Sander coÌ„fesseth the Hebrew readeth because he is holy So might he haue confessed that the Hebrew readeth worship at the stoole of his feete which is at the arke tabernacle or teÌ„ple which is called by Dauid 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstoole of Gods feete And that the sense of this verse is all one with yâ— last verse of the same Psalm which euen the vulgar Latine interpreter readeth thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate in monte sancto eius quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster Exalt ye the Lord our God worship in his holy mountaine because the Lord our God is holy In both verses is one word of worshipping the same preposition before the word that signifieth his footstoole and that word which signifieth his hil or mountaine Therfore the Latine interpreter should not haue said worship his foot stoole but worship in or at his footstoole as he saith in or at his holy hill Wherefore the Prophet Dauid in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the bodie of Christ any way if his own words rather then the words of the translator be considered Wherfore the foundatioÌ„ of this worship of the Sacrament is vtterly ouerthrowen But Sander saith that the Arke the temple being the footestoole of God toward which the Iewes did pray did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen but also in the Sacrament which is the arke temple vessel conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Did I not tell you in the preface that he would not proue the presence by the adoration but the adoration by the presence which is all in question who shall grant that the SacrameÌ„t is such an arke temple vessel as he affirmeth But many of the old fathers vnderstood the footestoose for the bodie or flesh of Christ affirming that it was to be worshipped To this I answer first they were all deceiued in their ground of scripture that so tooke the footestoole Secondly some of theÌ„ affirming the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped had no relation vnto the sacrament Thirdly they that said it was to be worshiped in the sacrament vnderstood worshipping otherwise then the Pa pists teach practise namely for reuerencing of Christs flesh in the mysteries without any imagination of carnall presence Hierom the first author cited by Sander for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith There be many opinions of the â—ootstole what it should be But heere the Prophet meaneth our Lordes body wherein the maiesty of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a footstoole This is spoken of the humanity of Christ without any respect vnto the Sacrament therfore it followeth Quid autem adorari debeat c. And that he ought to be adored the Apostles taught at his ascension when they returned vnto Ierusalem worshipping But also these thinges are to bee referred to our Lordes crosse and to his holy soule The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstanded by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteries which the Apostles as we haue said before did adore in our Lord Iesus for Christ is not deuided but one Here saith Ambrose the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honored or contemned in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrates in his word in al his creatures It followeth not that Christ is really present in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrats in his word in all his creatures Neither can it be prooued that by mysteries Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christes supper Againe when he saieth wee worshippe the flesh of Christ in the mysteries which the Apostles worshiped in Iesus Christ it followeth that the mysteries and Iesus Christ are diuerse thinges and not all one But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries that was worshipped in his proper person it followeth as Ambrose saieth that Christ is one and not deuided Thirdly is cited Augustine in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstoole to bee the flesh of Christ which he hath giuen vs to be eaten to saluation saith Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit c. And no man eateth that flesh except he haue first adored it it is found out how such a footstoole of our Lordes may be adored and that we should not only offend in adoring but we should sinne in not adoring Here Augustine saith the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten and who doubteth of that For hee that honoureth not Christe come in the fleshe shall neuer be nourished by his flesh and bloud But Augustine is so farre of to teach vs that Christs flesh is to be adored as really present in the Sacrament that he doth expresly denie his naturall body and bloud to be eaten and drunken for thus hee saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ as euen Sander reporteth ye shall not eate this body which you see nor drink that bloud which they shall shedde who shall crucifie mee I haue commended a certeine Sacrament to you being vnderstoode spiritually it will make you liue Although it must needes be celebrated visibly it must be vnderstanded inuisibly Howe thinke you Sander auoydeth the force of this place First he saith the last words must agree with the first and then both are true Very well he spake before of a spirituall manner of presence and eating of Christ in the Sacrament because he now denieth the corporall presence Secondly he answereth that Augustine speaketh of the visible forme and not of the substance of the body of Christ which is inuisible O abhominable impudence Augustine saith you shal not eate this bodye nor drinke that bloud Sander saieth These wordes body and bloud are taken for visible formes and not for the substance â—â—r Christ tooke not that greatnesse and quantity of flesh of his mother wherein he walked for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant to the state of a perfect man But I pray thee Sander if with shamefastnesse thou hast not lost all thy wit tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant or in the state of a perfect man Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified and that bloud which was shedde when he was crucified which body also he demeth that the Church hath present vpon
bene proued by a number of them Iohn the 〈◊〉 being condemned for denying the immort 〈…〉 of the â—â—ale Other Popes of our time calling the Gospel a fable of Christ requiring there pork in despite of God openly blaspheming his maiestie c. As for the Godhead of Christ and honor due to his â—anhoode in respect of the vnitie of person is nedelesse â—boâ— to prooue the adoration of the Sacrament except â—s adunation to the sacrament in one person bee first â—ooued But Esay saith Chap. 2. The Lorde aboue shall bee â—xalted in that daye and Idols shall be vtterly destroiâ—d It is verie true where the Lorde is exalted but that 〈◊〉 not in all places of the worlde neither euer was but â—nely where God hath set vp his true Church which is â—is kingdome Therefore all the prophecies cited by â—ander Ier. 30. Ez. 30. Mich. 1. Zoph 2. Zac. 13. Psa. 9. an â—undreth more that are of the abolishing of Idols and idoâ—atrie are to be vnderstood abolishing theÌ„ sroÌ„ the true â—ingdom Church of Christ not out of all the world â—r out of the kingdome of Antichrist and companie of â—alse Christians as Sander woulde beare fooles in hand And I meruell if any be so foolish to be persuaded that there can be no Idolatrie coÌ„mitted in worshipping that for God and Christ which is a meere creature But Saint Augustin writeth in lib. de diuin dâ—m That it was forespoken of the Prophets that the Gentiles should worship one God the false Gods whome they worshipped before being cast out S. Aug. saith truely of the Gentils they are become true Christians But were al the Gentils such froÌ„ the comming of Christ vnto S. Augustines time which was 400. yeres or be al the gentiles such at this day yea were there not of theÌ„ that were called Christians worshippers of Images in S. Augustines time Doeth he not write De moribus eccl Cath. lib. 1. Chap. â—4 of false Christians Nouimultos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores I knowe there are manie of theÌ„ which are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures See then if Sander haue any shame to cite Augustine for his purpose which is that no Idolatrie can bee committed since Christes time especially of them that are called Christians Beside Augustine hee abuseth the name of Athanasius de inâ—ar verb. Vbi nominatur c. Where Christ or his faith is named thence al Idolatrie is driuen yâ— deceitful guiles of the diuel are detected made open Loe saith Sand 〈…〉 name of Christ putteth away all Idolatrie Yea sir where it 〈◊〉 truely professed beleeued not wheresoeuer it is â—ounded heard with the outward eares This therfore proâ—â—â— not the contrary but Papistes worshippers of bread 〈◊〉 yea of stockes stones be Idolaters as well as the barbâ—rous people in the new Indies where Christ Christiâ—â— faith is named but not imbraced nor beleued oftentiâ—â— of the namers theÌ„selues But Ie. in li. 2. in Esa ca. 4. affirmeâ—â— Post c. after the coÌ„ming of Christ al idols to haue holdâ—â— their peace If Sand. were not a proud asse which disdâ—â—neth to learne I would teach him that Ierom speaketh oâ—â— oracles answeres which by the diuel are giuen at diuâ—â— idols al which not only IeroÌ„ a christiaÌ„ but also Plutaâ—â—â— an heathen man affirmeth froÌ„ that time to haue ceased and not to haue spoken any more But Hierom was neue◠〈◊〉 impudent to affirme that there could be no idolatry coÌ„mâ—â—ted since the time of Christ. Yet San. affirmeth that lightly nâ—â— so much as any heretik yet hath professed to worshipâ—â—â— artificial Idol made with the hands of maÌ„ You may se hâ—â— lightly this man is seene in the old writers or els how impudently he disseÌ„bleth that which he knoweth First Simâ—â— Magus accounted the father of al heretikes did set forth the Images of himselfe and of Helena his harlot to be worshipped of his disciples euen as the Images of Iupiter Minerua c. were among the Gentiles Epiphaniâ—â— lib. 1. Tom. 2. praefat and Augu. Haer. 1. Secondly Carpâ—crates made Images priuily of Iesus and of Paul and 〈◊〉 Homer and of Pythagoras and did offer incense vnto them and worship them Epiph. and Aug. Lib. 6. Thirdly the Gnostikes had Images painted in colours and some of golde and siluer and other matter which they saide were the Images of Iesus made vnder Pontius Pilate wheÌ„ he liued among men Epiph. Haer. 27. Fourthly the Melchisedechians which were in Arabia Petraea Robam and Edom worshipped the Image of Moses which they made Epip contra Melch. Haer. 55. Finally the Collyridians committed Idolatrie vnto the Virgine Marie Epipha cont Collyrid Haer. 79. Beside so many false Christians as in S. Augustines time worshipped pictures sepulchres And to omit them that worshipped Images in France whoÌ„ Gregorie vnto Serenus affirmeth to haue committed Idolatrie although he disallowed the breaking of the Images But Papists are not so insensible saith Sand. to worship bread made with the bakers hand why not as well as to worship metal wood stone in your images yet Chrysostome saith there were fewe cities left in his time in which Idolatrie was vsed there is no citie in Christendome where the sacrament hath not ben worshipped saith Sander for so many hundreth yeares Yes sir where the Waldenses were in Calabria in France Boëmia other places your bread worship preuailed not And God be thanked there are nowe many hundred cities in which that Idolatry is not openly coÌ„mitted except it be by stelth in corners so no doubt but heathenishe Idolatrie was coÌ„mitted in most cities in the world in Chrysostomes time considering what number there were of heathen men in all places Therefore where Sander saith that all Christians for euer haue worshipped the sacrameÌ„t as that very body blod of Christ is vtterly false seeing it is not much aboue 300. yeres since Pope Honorius made the decre of that kind of worship which Sand. defendeth which decree had ben in vain if al ChristiaÌ„s for euer had worshipped it But Sand. at length asketh if ther be no idolatry in ChristendoÌ„ he answereth to much of inward idolatry but no outward idolatry at al. Inward idolatry he couÌ„teth couetousnes heresies so was Luther the first idolater of our age theÌ„ Zuinglius theÌ„ Caluin the sacramentarie english idol the vanitie of which assertion to haue cited is abundanly to haue coÌ„futed He concludeth that to say that the blessed sacrament of Christ is an Idol seemeth necessary to employ that Christ instituted an Idol This implicatioÌ„ must come froÌ„ such a senseles Idol as Sand is for otherwise they that haue eies see eares heare can easily conceiue that an holy sacrameÌ„t instituted by god by abuse of Idolaters may be turned into an Idol as was the brasen serpent therefore was broken by Ezechias Neither did Christ giue any occasion of Idolatrie by his wordes in the
supper more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes CAP. III. The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen 〈…〉 proued out of the new Testament The Apostle saith the vnworthie receiuer eateth and drinketh damnation not putting a difference betweene our Lordes bodie and other meates saith Sander And this difference is in two pointes the first in due preparation of our selues which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God the seconde is in respect of the substance of the meate that is receaued which is to be honored and adored I answere the earthly substance is not to be adored the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present and not vppon the earth and as well in Baptisme as in the supper But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. â—8 saith hee eateth vnworthily who considereth not as it behooueth the greatnes of the things set forth not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift Hee speaketh not of the effect saith Sander but of the substance of the Sacrament because he saith afterwarde If thou doest learne diligently who is s 〈…〉 foorth thou needest to account nothing else I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament that is Christ yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnder the formes of bread and wine for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes both of the olde Testament and the newe Christ washeth vs in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vs in his supper and hee purgeth vs with his bloode as verily as hee feedeth vs with his bodie and bloode Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing when he saith Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood we drinke in a mysterie For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie is to drinke it spiritually by meane of a Sacrament euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth is false and hath â—o ground nor consequence wee must iudge the subâ—â—ance of this Sacrament as the substance of him that â—s Gâ—d therefore wee must adore the substance of this â—acrament as God For admit that I must adore the boâ—ie of Christ which is God yet it followeth not that I â—ust adore it vnder the visible formes of the breade and â—ine For the body of Christ which as Irenae us saith â—s the heauenly part of this sacrament is in heauen and â—ot vnited to the bread and wine or to the shapes of theÌ„â—n personall vnion more then the bloode of Christ or â—he holy Ghost vnto the water in Baptisme yet I must â—dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bapâ—isme as that which is God or in personall vnion vnited â—o God as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour But Chrysostome saith further in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light life I answere this is nothing else but the effect of our redemption whereof we are assured by participation of that table As for the heauenly substance that it is in heauen Chrysostome sufficiently declareth when hee affirmeth in the same Homily that we must become eagles and flee into heauen for where the dead bodie is thither wil the eagles be gathered Wherefore the adoration that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vnto the outward elementes which if Sander cannot shewe hee laboureth in vaine to tell vs of the true substance of the sacrament which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ vnto the worthie receiuer but not personally vnited to that breade and wine or the shapes of them But nowe let vs heare what he hath to say out of Saint Augustine Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium who answereth the question Whether they doe better that receaue the communion euerie day or they which at certaine times onely Neuter eorum exhonorat c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour if each of them striue who may honor best the most healthfull sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house the other by saying Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes Manna tasted to euerie man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to bee iudged concerning the receiuing of that sacrament into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honor sake doeth not take it euery day an other for honors sake dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie As Manna would no loothsomenes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue beene vnworthily receiued of them Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discerne this thing from other meates by a veneration singularly due For streight when he had said he eateth drinketh damnatioÌ„ to himself be said moreouer Not discerning our Lordes bodie the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently marked This place to Sander seemeth merueilous notable for honor due to the sacrament And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme is an heretike and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost or as the bloode of Christ is an idolater But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all but onely such as in which I dissent from him In the fourth obseruation he noteth that we must striue to honor the sacrament whether by this meane or that it skilleth not so it be honored If he vnderstand of those two meanes of which Augustine speaketh I agree with him if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament I say he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine In the fifth obseruation he saith If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine hee would neuer exhort vs to bee so carefull howe to honor a meere creature were it neuer so great a signe I answere we honour not a meere creature when we honour the sacrament for his sake that instituted the same for we honour God and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine We honor not a meere creature when we honor a magistrat and yet the magistrate in substance is a man In the ninth obseruation he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
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