your doctrine because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures But the faithfull you thinke for all that were not so straite laced but beleeued them vppon their owne worde both Christ and his Apostles because of the spirite of trueth that he sent to them And God be thanked we as faithfull men acknowledge without controuersie the spirite of trueth in Christ and his Apostles But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely sayeth Bristow but also to his Church after them for euer We doubt not but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church but not in such full measure as to his Apostles And if he had how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite but by tryall of the scriptures which were vndoubtedly written by the same spirite Bristow saith the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church at all times for the same spirite then the Apostles He must first proue the spirite so giuen to the Church that shee can no more erre in her decrees then the Apostles could in their writings Secondly if that were proued the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations which all boast of the spirite of trueth as much as the true Church And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirite but trye the spirites whether they be of God we knowe none so sure a triall as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures whether it be a multitude of men or seueral persons of one age or another of one degree or other that offreth to teache any doctrine which he or they pretende to haue of the spirite of God Last of all where I sayde Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth and therefore I wâ—y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe Bristowe noteth in the margent It is pryde to follow the fathers and humilitie to condemne them Whereto I aunswere to boast of the fathers to maintaine an olde errour is stinking pryde and it is not against true humilitie to make fathers and mothers and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde reuealed in the holy scriptures The second parte Being tolde that the question betweene vs is not as he maeketh it of the Scriptures authoritie but of the meaning howe there likewise against all the expositors he maketh the same exception of onely scripture requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture When in all this Chapter you deny onely scripture to be of soueraine authoritie sufficiency and credite to teache vs all the will of God are you not impudent to saye the question is not of the authoritie of the Scriptures But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning and not of the authoritie Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood bâ— on our side or on the auncient doctors side for the meaning of the scripture What then I aunswere the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie where some of the doctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes This aunswere I trust will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie After this he sayeth I count my selfe and my companions happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the coÌ„mentaries of doctors but as he troweth not without the coÌ„mentaries of Caluine But herein as in all things almost he belyeth mee for I neuer spake word against the reading of the coÌ„mentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition without weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places Likewise where I compare the whole heape of superstition errour out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill Bristowe noteth that I make the doctors writings a dunghill Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors as the sweeping of a faire house is meete to be cast on a dunghill Let Bristowe or Allen if he list say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors And yet it followeth not that the doctors writings are a dunghill more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse blindnesse c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scriptures where I sayde wee shalbe neuer the more certeine of the trueth whether wee challenge or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding the scriptures to the doctors Bristowe aunswereth whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree shall bee euer most certaine of trueth which is inoughe though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning Wee are then much the neere when the question is of the scriptures meaning if by the consent of the doctors we cannot be certaine of the scriptures meaning And if that trueth as we beleeue that all trueth is in the scriptures howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures Where I aunswere that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite as the doctors had although wee agree not with them in all interpretations euen as Cyprian and Cornelius were both indued with Gods spirite although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures Bristowe replyeth that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè though explicitè hee were of an erronious iudgement And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring because hee qâ—eâ—ly continueth in vnitie with them and doth not obstinately holde his error against them But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs for neither will wee bee reformed by them neither woulde they be reformed by Aâ—rius Iouinianus c. whom he calleth our forefathers If you haue no greater diuersitie then this the case will be all one for neither woulde Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade of Catholikes in their time as wee can make in this time although they woulde not bee reformed by Aerius an heretike yet charitie moueth vs to thinke they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Catholike Where I conclude that the harde places of scripture are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier adding the ordinarie meanes of witt learning c. adding that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may eaâ—ie bee deceiued Bristowe noteth a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman ought to bee ignoraunt in the 〈…〉 riptures
rules enacted by Parliament for condemning heresie if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect and not deride them like a scornefull traitor he might vnderstand that the three later are not contrarie to the first which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture which is declared either in the 4. first general councels or in any other generall councell agreeing with the scripture or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter Not that the Parliament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie or to make any thing heresie which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures What if I woulde not were I worse then the Thessalonians or Bereans which dayly searched the scriptures to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture saith Bristowe and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth Gal. 1. which was of preaching as if it were of onely scripture I aunswere my wordes are these if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth he is to be accursed but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God since the Apostles departure but the canonicall scriptures which doe containe al that they preached the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of saluatioÌ„ then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels 〈…〉 he see apostolike and succession of bishops with a note 〈◊〉 the ende what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence whereof if I had any couler my selfe 〈…〉 o mountybanke pedler is so facing and boasting as I â—nd my fellowes As franke as I seeme in renouncing â—hat goodly euidence I trust to be carefull enough to â—olde fast the euidence of eternall life which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God and if I and my fellowes boast in â—hem because our boasting is in God I doubt not but â—ee shal be better accepted of him then they that count â—hat boasting a stale exception and boast in vanitie 〈…〉 ust in lying and at least make flesh for their arme â—heir heart departeth from the liuing God 4 Against the fathers Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares 〈…〉 ter Christ because I knowe they cannot yet in that 〈…〉 allenge I say nothing contradictorie to my former 〈…〉 ssertion that onely the worde of God conteined in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures is the iudge of all doctrine and tryall of trueth and stay of a Christian mans conscience against any thing that is taught to be beleeued vnto saluation or concerning the worship of God either contrary to it or beside it But Fulkes two onelyes sayeth Bristowe namely onely the moste auncient Church and only Scripture are vtterly without all ground and but 〈…〉 eere voluntarie If it be without grounde to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof let euery Christian conscience consider As for the voluntarinesse â—f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie beâ—ause you will not accept them let your will stande in 〈…〉 eede of reason but if you call them voluntarie because you neede not accept them and yet approue your selues good Christians remember who it is that sayth my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come when you will not be tyed to the most auncient Churches testimony and the eldest writers of the same Nowe concerning other by quarrels and cauils whereas I sayde Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures wee receiue it with their praise and whatsoeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures we refuse with their leaue Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures But who made him so priuie of my meaning my wordes import no such thing for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian that which I spake of all the fathers in generall Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani non vt canonicas habeo sed eaâ— ex canonicâ—â— considero quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit cum laude eius accipio quod autem non congruit cuâ— pace eius respuo I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall but I consider them by the canonicall and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures I receiue it with his praise but that which agreeth not I refuse it with his leaue I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly by that which agreeth with the Scripture to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes Where I sayde that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest worde of God and the credite of the Apostles there is no cause that we should be carryed away with them Bristowe sayeth in the margent aâ— though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles when wee saye The Apostles haue not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings you aunswere but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men is not to be receiued he noteth our absurditie because not onelye Melancton and such like as Allen hath tolde â—s were mortall men but also in the same terme of mortall men are the Apostles them selues comprehended And what of this Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton or of Peter and Paul as they were mortall men No verily Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone and the onely author of the doctrine whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste and therefore their writings wee receiue as the worde of God which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles Where I sayde We dare not depend vppon any one manâ—â—udgement for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde Bristowe answereth Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time yea and â—ith Christ him selfe and yet to winne such persons both the Apostles and Christ him selfe condescended to them accordingly And why do not you follow the example of Christ of his Apostles to winne so many thousandes as doe refuse
determined against it In the 36. Demand of Owners or Keepers of the scriptures where I say the primitiue Church which commendeth the scripture vnto vs doth not condemne Luther or his doctrine for heresie Bristowe saith it doth in Aerius Iouinian Vigilantius c. as though there were no primitiue Church before these men which commended the scripture vnto vs and yet knewe neither praier for for the deade nor superstition of reliques or any thing that Luther held with those men Where I taxe the blindnesse of the Popish Church not discerning the scriptures Canonicall from Apocryphall Bristowe bringeth in a saying of Augustine shewing that it is of necessitie for him to beleeue the Actes of the Apostles if he beleeue the Gospell because the Catholike authoritie commendeth both the scriptures alike vnto him But I haue shewed that the Maccabees Ecclesiasticus Iudeth c. are not commended to vs by the Catholike or vniuersall authoritie of the Church After other contentious pointes stoutly affirmed or denied without proofe he commeth to charge me with a substantiall lie because I say our Church which is the onely true Catholike Church hath alwaies had right and possion of the worde of God as appeareth by this that our Church beleueth nothing but that she learneth in them If this be not a notable plea Bristowe reporteth him to our Lawiers But I report me to al Logicians whether it be not a good argument by prouing vs to be the true Church to claime continuall right and possession of the scriptures as for the noueltie of Luther our cōgregatiō is a weake plea to dispossesse vs of the Church when y◠antiquitie of our faith and religion proueth vs to be of the oldest Church and therefore the only true Church Where Allen made his offer that if I could shewe any Church that hath safely kept the scriptures sauing the Popish Church he would recant I shew him the Greeke and Easterne Churches which are not Popish whervpon he is bound by his offer to recant yet Bristowe without all shame saith Euery article of D. Allens is not to proue absolutely that we be the Church but some only that you be not the Church True it is that neither euery one nor any of them all are sufficient to proue that you are the Church and not we But that Allen meant they were sufficient it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant if any of them can be proued to agree to any other than to the Popish Church In the eight and thirtie Demand of old Heresies where I shewed that many of the Popish ceremonies were first instituted by heretikes aunswering directly to Allens challenge that offered to recant if any man could proue that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies Bristowe saith they are such matters as agree none otherwise to them then to those whome I dare not condemne c. Which if it were so yet doth it not shewe but that I haue aunswered Allens challenge and therefore do according to his promise claime his recantation Of the Messalians or Martyrians I saide they learned first to shaue their beardes and let their lockes growe long Bristowe out of Epiphanius saith they did let their haire growe long like women The Popish Priestes doe not so but round them Yet can he not proue out of Epiphanius that the Messalians did not keepe their haire in order by rounding or otherwise Further he saith some Protestants doe so I aunswere none of ceremonie doth so Thirdly Priestes in Italie and Spaine doe poll their heads and keepe their beardes I answere they keepe the text of the decree and you the glosse which saith statuimus id est abrogamus c. We decree that is we abrogate that Clearkes neither weare long haire nor shaue their beardes Last of all he saith I haue no great matters to charge them with when I lay their haires to their charge My reply is that my charge goeth no further then Allens challenge which vrgeth me to shewe any other to haue first instituted any one ceremonie in Poperie but the Popes only Catholike Church And so I say to the superstitious masking garmentes instituted by the Pharisees although the auncient Church about foure or fiue hundreth yeares after Christe receiued such robes in vse Also the daily vse of Popish holie water to put men in minde of baptisme had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptized or washed euerie day Here Bristowe with a verie stale iest acknowledgeth their fault and layeth it vpon Saint Paule who hath deceiued them Rom. 6. where baptisme is in deede remembred but holie water I trowe is not there O then it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paule was to blame saith Bristowe to tell vs that the creatures of God are sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer Wonderfull Diuinitie that can bring Popish holie water to so holie a beginning No maruell if we be blinde which thinke the Apostle speaketh there of the lawfull vse of meates forbidden by the Pope and of all other of Gods creatures being sanctified by the worde of God which giue vs the vse so by praier that we may vse them well But specially saith Bristowe he was to blame for saying The holy Ghost doth helpe our weaknesse praying for vs with groanes vnspeakeable how so euer blinde heretikes thinke he will doe nothing by water for praier In deede when the scriptures be so plaine for holie water it is wonder that any be so blinde they can see it Of the Ossenes I saide they tooke their hallowing of water salt oyle breade c. and vse to sweare by them Bristow asketh if I be an Anabaptist that will condemne all swearing or swearing by creatures I aunswere I will not condemne all swearing but this customable swearing of Papistes by this bread by this salt c. and as for swearing by creatures I am of the same iudgement that our Sauior Christ is Matth. 5. 34. But Papistes sweare not by them as the Ossenes did what then the controuersie is not therein but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholers a praier in a straunge tongue whose interpretation they might not seeke whome the Papistes followe in teaching the people to pray in a tongue vnknowne and will not if they may chose let them knowe the interpretation Bristowe aunswereth that Epiphanius saith his praier was nothing at all when it was interpreted Is it like Epiphanius would say so Howe could it be interpreted if it had no signification Epiphanius in deed sheweth it was a vaine thing whereof he made so great a mysterie and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the Lordes prayer the Salutation and the creede make vaine and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their wordes together truly The Marcosians in baptisme vsed for greater admiration certaine Hebrewe wordes so doe the papistes Bristowe asketh whie S.
Popes superioritie ouer the councell And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such preâ—idency as the councell woulde graunt without all iuâ—isdiction of compulsion being himselfe compelled to â—â—taine that order of proceeding which the councell before â—is presidencie was admitted had obserued What Leo â—he tenth in his Laterane councell decreed against the â—ouncell of Basil I haue nothing to doe with it except 〈◊〉 be to proue that one pope going against the decrees of â—nother pope and one councell against another that â—either of both is to be credited Howe childish my inâ—ultation is howe voide of victorie my triumph howe â—nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are as Bristow scofâ—eth I leaue to all reasonable men to consider 3. Touching the Constance councels presumption I sayd it was horrible praesumption that the councell of Constance decreede contrarie to the worde of God in plaine wordes That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to bee receiued in both kindes and that the faithfull in the primitiue Church did so receiue it yet the custome of the Church of Rome shall preuaile and whosoeuer saith contrarie it â—an heretike These wordes he saith I print as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed in a distincte letter as the plaine wordes of the councell whereas these are not the wordes of the councell Heere is the quarell No sir I neuer ment to print these wordes as the wordes of the councell but as the summe and contente of them which because they were large I woulde not set downe at large in a bymatter But now being urged with falsification or at least false collectioÌ„ I wil set theÌ„ down as they a 〈…〉 CoÌ„ Const sessâ— 13. wtout any such interruptions as is vsâ—al with you to make that you might carie away the simple readen mind from the true sense of theÌ„ Cùm in nonnullis c. wheras in certaine partes of the worlde certeine parsons presume rashly to affirme that Christian people ought to receiue the sacrament of that Euchariste vnder both kindes oâ— bread wine do communicate the lay people euerie where not onely vnder the kind of bread but also vnder 〈◊〉 kinde of wine yea after supper or otherwise not fasting and stubbernely affirme that they ought so to be communicated against the laudable custome of the church resonably approued which as sacrilegious damnably they goe about to reproue hereof it is that this present holy generall councell of Constance lawfully gathered together in the holyghost entending to prouide for the saluation of the faithfull against this error hauing had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the lawe of god and of man declareth decreeth defineth that although Christ after supper did institute minister vnto his disciples this holy sacrament vnder both kindes of bread wine yet this notwithstanding the laudable authoritie of holy Canons the approued custome of the Church hath obserued doth obserue that this sacrament ought not to be made after supper neither to be receiued of the faithful not fasting but in case of sicknesse or other necessitie of right or of the Church graunted or admitted And as this custome to auoide certeine daungers and offences is reasonably brought in that although in the primitiue church this sacrament was receiued of the faithfull vnder both kinds afterward of theÌ„ which make it it is receiued vnder both kinds of the lay people only vnder the kind of bread seeing it ought most stedfastly to be beleeued by no meanes to be doubted but that the whole bodie and bloud of Christ is truly coÌ„tained as wel vnder the kind of bread as vnder the kind of wine WhervpoÌ„ seeing such a custome by the church holy fathers is reasonably brought in hath beene very long obserued it must be takeÌ„ for a law which it is not lawful to reproue or with out the authority of the church to change at mens pleasure â—herfore to say that to keep this custom or law is sacrilege 〈◊〉 vnlawfull it ought to be iudged erroneous and they â—hich stubbernly affirme the contrary of the premisses are 〈◊〉 be driuen away as heretiks to be greuosly punished â—y that dyocessanes of the places or their officials or by the inâ—uisitor of heretical prauity in those kingdomes or proâ—inces in which any thing perhaps shal be attempted or â—resumed against this decree according to the Canonicall â—nd lawful functions which haue ben solemnly inveÌ„ted 〈◊〉 fauour of the Catholike faith against heretikes and â—heir fautors Here you see the prelates of the councel take â—pon theÌ„ as great authority in altering the matter of the saâ—rament which is a necessarie part of the institutioÌ„ therof â—s in ordering the time in which it shal be ministred which â—s no part of the institution therof Also that they confes that â—n the primitiue church the sacrament was receiued in both â—inds therfore they are presuÌ„ptuous to say hoc noÌ„ obstaÌ„te â—his notwtstaÌ„ding the custome of later yeares brought in â—s reasonable shal be obserued as a law the gainsayers â—herof being coÌ„deÌ„ned punished as heretikes Brist caâ—illeth that they say not the custome of the church of Rome as I said As though wheÌ„ they speake of the custome of the church they meane any other church but the church of R. Such bables B. hath to couer their blasphemous sacriâ—legious presumption Touching certain false interpretations of scripture To color the false interpretatioÌ„s folowing he coÌ„meÌ„deth the sayings of August de doct Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth euery maÌ„ principally to shoote at that sense of the writer in expositioÌ„ of the scripture but if he misse that sense hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith or is profitable to build charity towards god our neighbor he is not perniciously deceiued c. VpoÌ„ this Allen in his offer to that protestaÌ„t saith Ar. 86. 87. Let any man proue vnto me that the true only church of god may falsely interprete any sentence of holy scripture I recant This generall offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye or wilfully lying as is conteined in Saint Augustines sayinges vnto whiche Bristowe woulde nowe seeme to make relation I did accept And first I proued that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Westerne Church did falsely interprete this scripture Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c. and that to maintaine a false opinion of the necessitie of the communion for all persons and euen infantes that should haue life euerlasting and therefore repugnant to right faith as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter Secondly I noted diuerse places of scripture not onely falsely but also ridiculously expouÌ„ded in the second councell of Nice to maintaine idolatrie against the expresse commaundement of God and therefore contrary to the right faith
of this booke of Bristowe I praye you sir Haue you perused and allowed thi◠booke What els doe you not see it printed in the first leafe Perused and allowed by mee Thomas Stapleton And are you so good a peruser and allower of bookes Maister Stapleton that you cannot espie in them Chalk taken for Cheese Doe you not see your scholer Bristowe alledge saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor to proue the truth of the greeke text lib. 7. in Ioan cap. 10. and when all commeth to all there is no such booke of Cyrill the auncient Greeke doctor extant but it is poore Iodocus Clicthouius a late Latine writer that hath supplyed those 4. bookes of Cyrill that are lost Wherefore to returne to you M. Bristow except your councel be better and sauour more of good learning and knowledge you may keepe it for your friendes As for your assertion without doubt that the copie which your authenticall translator followed had euen as hee translated helpeth you little or nothing which if it were graunted howe can you proue that hee translated it as you nowe reade it Seeing it is certainly knowne to them that haue conferred his translation with the originall that beside that in diuerse places he giueth not the true sense of the Greeke in many texts also he is corrupted where he had translated right Wherefore how fully I am aunswered on euery side cōcerning this text as you boast in the end let the readers iudge In the last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting vpon vs that corrupt Latine translation which all learned men doe know to be corrupt in such texts as are the most coulerable places for the defence of popish doctrine of which I giue one example for all They allege the text 1. Cor. 10. Qui stat videat ne cadat he that standeth let him take heed◠he fall not against the certaintie of faith where as the Greeke hath not hee that standeth but hee that thinketh he standeth c. Bristowe biddeth mee looke better in the text their translation is not as I charge it but euen as I say the Greeke to be Qui se existimat stare c And therefore in the margent he biddeth stand out of his light that the childe may see Might not I say shore vp your eyes syr Richarde and see that I doe not say the text is so translated but so alledged They alledge the text Qui stat videat ne cadat And if you require mine author who allegeth it so looke in Haymo vpon the verie place and you shall finde these verie wordes Qui stat in fide operibus videat ne cadat He that standeth in faith and workes let him see that he fal not And if you woulde haue a later writer that so alledgeth it looke in Gregory Martin one of your broode who in his booke of schisme alleageth it in so many wordes Qui stat videat ne cadat in the first chapter of his booke And what hath brought them to this vnderstanding but your corrupt translation Qui se existimat star◠hee that iudgeth or is perswaded that he standeth For existimare signifieth properly to iudge or esteeme vppon good groundes to thinke certeinely and not like putare which worde Ambrose vseth in the interpretation of this text and signifieth to thinke vainly And so is existimare vsed by your translator in other places Rom. 6. Ita vos existimate c. So you esteeme or iudge your selues to be deade vnto sinne c. And againe 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo vt ministros Christi c. Let a man thus esteeme or iudge of vs as of the ministers of Christ. Againe Iac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate c. My brethren count it all ioy when you fall into diuerse temptations In all which places existimare signifieth to thinke certeinely not vainely as in this text 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare he that vainely thinketh that he standeth let him take heede that he falleth not I confesse I might haue brought an hundreth places of scripture in which the corruption is more cleere vnto euery simple mans vnderstanding but this I tooke to be sufficient seing to proue the corruption of the translation was not the principall matter of the demaunde which I aunswered but to yeelde a reason why the popishe Church did not as wel corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine conteined in the same CAP. VII That he hath no other shift against our manifolde Euidences so cleere they be but the name of only Scripture as well about ech controuersie as also about the meaning of the scripture it self And howe timerous he maketh vs and how bolde he beareth him selfe heereupon First he chargeth me with shamefull confessions that I haue been faine to make against mine owne side and for their side which what they are you haue heard alreadie and what shame I haue gotten by them and what aduantage their side hath of them Next he promiseth to shew the same more cleerly by running ouer those common euidences of Christian trueth out of which he framed his Motiues and demands which I confesse to be al against me because I take exception against them say that onely scripture is good euidence in such suits c. But what I confesse or deny of those euidences may best be seene in my Retentiue against his motiues and demaundes The first part Howe he excepteth by onely scripture against all other euidences in the controuersies that are betwene vs and first against the rule to knowe heresie c. Hee rehearseth many sentences of mine mangled interrupted with his owne glosses in which I professe that No opinion is heresie which is not contrary to the holy scriptures although it be accompted heresie of the worlde where hee slaundereth me to terme them the worlde which before I confessed to be the true Church The places Art 44. where I speak of them which preaching in these later times against poperie haue beene of the Romishe Church condemned for heretikes as Waldo Wickelief Hus c. In the processe following where I sayd that if Aerius had not bene an Arrian the opinion he held against prayer for the dead coulde not haue made him an heretike Bristow compting my saying to be blasphemie belike against the Popes kitchē addeth that it seemeth I knewe not the purpose of Augustine in his book de Haer. which he saith was the purpose of Epiphanius also not to confute but only to report of heresies that had benbefore his time Seeing it is inough to know that the catholik Churches iudgement is against thē And that it helpeth much the faithfull hearte onely to know what must not be belieued although he be not able to confute it by disputing And why seeme I ignorant of this purpose except it be because I said that neither Epiphanus
bee the author the Prophetes and Apostles for witnesses vnder this antiquitie that which had an erroneus beginning shall haue a shamefull ending Purg. 399. Heere Bristowe taketh aduantage of the Printers error although he be admonished 〈◊〉 of in the Corrections and not content with that 〈…〉 fieth my wordes making me to say as for witnesse 〈◊〉 this antiquitie we passe not for them Yes 〈◊〉 we esteeme all good witnesses of that auncient 〈◊〉 whereof God is the author But you say the rule w 〈…〉 receyue proueth the Apostles to be authors of sole 〈…〉 payer for the dead in the Masse such like articles 〈◊〉 taught and beleeued before Luther began such 〈…〉 uations c. But I reply that Vincentius rule is 〈◊〉 such fooles fable but requireth antiquitie to bee 〈…〉 tinued alwayes euen from Christ which seeing you 〈◊〉 not shewe noâ— other conditions which hee requi 〈…〉 for your articles his rule helpeth you nothing at a◠〈◊〉 rule which he handleth at large throughout his b 〈…〉 is briefly set downe in this sentence In ipsa 〈…〉 Ecclesia mag 〈…〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 id 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈◊〉 qâ—â—d 〈…〉 er 〈◊〉 ab 〈…〉 us 〈…〉 est 〈…〉 propriâ—que C 〈…〉 n qâ—â—d iâ—sa 〈…〉 q 〈…〉 d 〈…〉 A 〈…〉 the Catholike Church it selfe wee must greatly 〈◊〉 that wee hold that thing which hath bene euery 〈…〉 which hath beene alwayes which hath beene of all 〈◊〉 beleeued for that is truely and properly Ca 〈…〉 which the verie force and reason of the name d 〈…〉 reth that comprehendeth al thinges truely 〈…〉 ly Examine your articles by this rule aâ—d you 〈◊〉 finde not one of them catholike So that my excep 〈…〉 of the soueraigne authority of only scripture 〈…〉 deth 〈◊〉 well with the rules both of Tertulliâ—â— and Vince 〈…〉 Lyri 〈…〉 For to the trueth as Aristotle saith all 〈…〉 ges agree that are true but fâ—lshoode soone bewrayeth itselfe 2 Aga 〈…〉 the A 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Aga 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ed traditions of the Apo 〈…〉 I make exceptioÌ„ of the writinges of the Apostles to bâ—â— the onely c 〈…〉 yne 〈…〉 esse of theâ—â— true tradition Aâ—d I saye Allâ—â— blâ—â—phâ—mously fâ—thereth â—ppon the Apo 〈…〉 the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for the 〈…〉 〈…〉 we chargeth me neuerthelesse to affirme that 〈◊〉 Cyprian Augustine Ierome and a great ma 〈…〉 are witnesses hereof Pur. 362. wherin he shame 〈…〉 y belyeth mee for that I do onely rehearse parte of 〈…〉 s wordes which affirmeth them to be witnesses 〈…〉 ch thing Bristowe might easily see by the diuersi 〈…〉 of print if he had not beene disposed to â—â—â—under me 〈…〉 er this by the example of Allen which is a great po 〈…〉 I pose the Papistes with this question Why God 〈…〉 uld haue none of the Apostles to put this matter or 〈…〉 e worde thereof in writing which afterward shoulde 〈◊〉 disclosed by Tertullian Cyprian Augustine c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bristow after much bibling out of S. Augustin 〈…〉 e Apostles haue not left in writing the whole order 〈…〉 celebration of the sacraments answereth that one piece of 〈◊〉 that it was omitted by the apostles was for bre 〈…〉 s sake But I Bristow do not speake of any order or 〈…〉 me of ceremonies which because they are variable 〈…〉 cording to times places persons the apostles haue 〈◊〉 prescribed but of the doctrin of praying sacrifising 〈…〉 r the dead which in much lesse bâ—â—uitie then the 〈…〉 stles vsed might haue beene without any tedi 〈…〉 nes let downe at the least in one worde mentioned 〈…〉 herfore breuitie could be no piece of the cause but a 〈…〉 ore miserable refuge of a papist driuen to the wall 〈…〉 r want of a better answere But if this be a piece what is then 〈◊〉 supplemeÌ„t of the whole cause Bristow answereth in these words 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 g. Which 〈…〉 so many â—f 〈…〉 one of â—wspanâ— wâ—â—ld 〈…〉 Do I imagine Bristowe am so greatly 〈…〉 ceiued I follow not mine own imagination but their 〈…〉 ne writing S. Iohn testifieth that those things which 〈◊〉 had written were su 〈…〉 to obtaine euerlasting life 〈…〉 y beleeuing them Io 〈…〉 S. Luke â—â—eweth his purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 th in a 〈◊〉 summe the trueth of all thinges 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 les deliuered concerning the docâ—â—ine 〈…〉 ngs of Christ L 〈…〉 Ac 〈…〉 S. Paul 〈…〉 eth that the holy scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe 〈…〉 prepared to all good workes 2 Tim. 2. But you haue greate reason to proue that they purposed not to put all in writinge because neither so many of them nor o 〈…〉 of them so often would haue meÌ„tioned one thing wh 〈…〉 as contrariwise it is manifest thereby that they studie not so much for breuitie but that they might haue expressed in a word or two prayers sacrifice for that deaâ— seing so manye of them some one so often doeth mention one thing Againe it were againste reason that they shoulde mention one thing so often whicâ— though it be profitable yet it is not necessarie to bee often mentioned to omitte altogether such matten as are necessarie to bee knowne and not in one worde mention them The purpose of the holy ghost that Bristowe doth imagine were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect that the gospels were written onely to shewe Christ to say Consummatum est and al things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him the Actes of the Apostles to shew but as it were the first birth of the Church the Apocalipse to shew the whole course of the Churche to the ende of the worlde The other bookes were written saith he specially against the perfidious Iewes other false maisters of that time As likewise in euerie age afterwarde we haue the Ecclesiasticall I say not the Canonicall writers and councels See you not how the blasphemous dog restraineth the vse of the Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written coÌ„pareth Ecclesiasticall writers and councels with the canonical scriptures If this that he saith were true the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to saluation as S. Paul saith wtout traditions Ecclesiastical writers 2. Tim. 3. Those thinges which S. Paul promiseth to set in order when he commeth 1 Cor. 11. I said must be vnderstood not of doctrine but of ceremonies as the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Bristowe aunswereth that the solemne prayer for the deade in the celebration of the sacrifice is one of Saint Paules ordinances I reply if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contayned Saint Paules writing yea or in any part of the cano 〈…〉 all Scriptures wee would not striue for the forme 〈◊〉 prayer But if wee may adde newe doctrines vpon 〈…〉 ler of the Apostles tradition neither is the Scrip 〈…〉 e so perfect as the holy Ghoste affirmeth it to bee 〈…〉 ther can the
into the wildernesse at the comming of Antichrist is to become inuisible to the worlde Although this article bee not a matter of faith in controuersie betweene vs neither yet so affirmed of mee as though to bee in the wildernesse were nothing else but to bee inuisible to the worlde yet I will proue so much as I affirmed that the Church being in the wildernesse is inuisible to the worlde The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not is to them inuisible But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world inuisible Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the beginning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion Before I proue this it were reason you should tell how sone you meane or I said such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing shoulde bee And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christes seconde comming The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken vp to God and his throne the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wildernesse The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely obscurely described by dayes monethes 〈…〉 d yeares and generally by a time times and halfe a 〈…〉 e which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be in account of our yeres nor when 〈…〉 comming of Christ should be After this hee saith I triumph in lying when I af 〈…〉 me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely 〈…〉 ipture whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter as to prooue that the tryall of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to bee onely by scripture And 〈…〉 terwarde hee sayth playnely they refuse the tryall 〈…〉 onely scriptures but not by scriptures no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith because they refuse onely faith 〈…〉 here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one 〈…〉 in the minor of this argument The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee 〈…〉 led onely by the voyce of Christ therefore shee is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona 〈…〉 le man woulde haue vnderstoode onely in the maior 〈…〉 so seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled 〈…〉 y the voyce of an other man then her husbande or 〈…〉 hat will bee ruled by her selfe or take vppon 〈…〉 er to ouerrule her husbande I added also in the 〈…〉 inor which Bristow omitteth that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions and com 〈…〉 mitteth grosse idolatrie Ar. 99. Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas 〈…〉 mie for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemeÌ„t 〈…〉 he answereth it is al one as if I shold say the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will bâ— cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned being hiâ— selfe a fisherman and vnstable did misconster S. Pauâ— epistles c. to their owne damnation which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue that the Apâ— stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God 〈◊〉 contrarie to the scriptures in other places to iudge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture as the Popish Church doeth 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter being an Apostle indued with so mâ— ny graces was vnlearned because hee had beene a 〈◊〉 sherman Agayne where I sayde the Popishe Church ma 〈…〉 festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures when shee affirmeth that no booke 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonicall but so far foorth as sh 〈…〉 will allowe it This sayth Bristowe is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them manifestly reiâ—cted the whole c because they made a Canon or Câ—nons whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonicall wherevppon him selfe also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet proued for they may bee called the Canon and Canonicall because they are the certayne rule to directe 〈◊〉 matters of religion But admitte the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them in hauing the spir 〈…〉 of discretion made such a Canon to discerne true aâ—d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or writen by the spirite of man what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalengeth that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholomewe as of Mathew of Thomas as of Iohn c whereby it followeth that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas Where I sayde the popish Bishoppes durst not abyde the conference at Westminster first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase because I saide it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde as one that care not what I say In deede I 〈…〉 de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which woulde not take my wordes as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉 ght haue knowledge of it Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference in com 〈…〉 rison of the councell of Trent yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken but such as was well liked of by the Papistes 〈…〉 m selues vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no 〈…〉 dite Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell 〈◊〉 Trent being so solemnly honorably inuited with 〈…〉 h safeconductes c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for euer on your behalfes And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered I say it was to no purpose in such a 〈…〉 cke councell where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll partie that is accused of heresie shall be the onely 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples lawes equitie and reason Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole countrie I will not quarell at your phrase 〈…〉 t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie But nowe to the fourefolde offer wherein first you say that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande â—e compt you as you shew your selues to bee errant â—aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent we owe no more subiection 〈…〉
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers that defende such prayers confessed they had them not of the Scriptures Of certaine particular textes I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare that the text 1. Cor. 3. of him that shal be saued through fire proueth not Purgatorie affirming that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life Bristowe cauilling that he affirmeth not but speaketh doubtfully c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire But Augustines wordes are plaine Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apoâ—tolus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh ought to be vnderstoode such that both may passe thorough it that is both he that buildeth vpon this foundation Golde Siluer pretious stones and he also which buildeth Woode Strawe Stubble For when he had saide this he added The fire shal trie euerie mans work such as it is if any mans worke remaine that which he hath builded vpon he shall receiue rewarde But if any mans worke be burned he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shal be saued yet so as it were through fire The fire truely is the tentation of tribulation of which it is manifestly written in an other place The fornace proueth the potters vessels and tentation of tribulation iust men This fire in this present life worketh that which the Apostle saith c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe Againe he speaketh not at all against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire that it shall haue an end but against such as in his time did holde That they which forsake not the name of Christ and are baptised with his lauer in the Church and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie although they liue in neuer so great wickednes which they neither wash away by repenting nor redeemed with almes but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life shal be saued through fire although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long but yet not eternal fire But they which beleeue this yet are catholikes seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence For the holy scripture being consulted answereth another thing c. Enc. ad Laurentium C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire through which some should passe not all therfore against the popishe purgatorie although he denye not but such a thing may be yet it cannot be proued by this place nor by any other place of scripture as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. diuision of this chapter where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie I answered Allen apposing vs where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way is cast into hell from whence he shal neuer come I alledged for that sense Chrysostome Augustine Hierom Chromatius This is passing childish saith Bristow For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing But this in deede is passing impudence for Allens words in the same diuision after he hath posed Caluin Flaccus Luther Iewel about their interpretation of scriptures are these But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title is of that place Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow it is not true that all those doctors haue that sense which I affirme them to haue But he only saith it let their wordes be read Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true As in that saying Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing some haue expounded that he shall alwayes be punished some that hee shall not be alwayes punished Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true Mary sayth Bristow with as fine Rhetorike as strong Logike Thus it is true those he and he are not one he but he that shal be alwayes punished is he that to the end of the way that is this life agreeth not with his aduersarie whome he hath deadly iniuryed as saying to him fatue and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis which iâ— the prison of the damned He that shal not be alwayes punished is he whose iniury was but veniall as Racha And so both interpretations agree well not onely together but also with the text it selfe In deede this is a fine distinction of he and he but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way shal be cast into prison from whence he shall neuer come whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them there is but one prison from whence there is no deliuerance vntil the last farthing be payde which by those doctors exposition is neuer payde Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser the punishment is eternall without reconciliation or as Saint Luke sayeth diligence to be reconciled If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee goe and reconcile thy selfe sayeth Christe and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger or saying Racha and not onely of saying Fatue But as for that he which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him he is not at all committed to prison were his iniurie great or small So that which He soeuer commeth into prison there is no waye of escape vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged Secondly whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testimonie against vs. First about the booke of Machabees Where I sayde that Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD Bristowe replyeth as though all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures Fulk reioyneth that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes is not canonicall Where I take exception to the Councel of Carthage which numbreth this booke among
would haue nothing done in the celebration of the lords supper namely in ministring of the cup but that Christ himselfe did lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow answereth the he writeth against the Aquarians which offered water only wher as Christ offered wine which was clean against Christs doing And what is your sacriledge in robbing of the church of Christ of the whole cup is it not cleane contrary both to his doing his coÌ„maundemeÌ„t drinke ye al of this and such doing as he did for a tradition vnto vs when the Apostle rehersing that tradition reherseth drinking of the Lords cup by the lay as well as eating of the bread As for mingling wine with water which first was but a custome of sobriety after grew into a ceremonie if Cyprian should vrge of necessitie he might be answered by his owne rule Likewise where Chrysostom saith it was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy misteries a remembrance should be made of them that are departed I said we wil be bold to charge him with his owne sayings first Hom de Adam Heâ—a satis sufficere c. wee thinke it sufficeth ynough whatsoeuer the writings of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresaid rule insomuch that we count it not all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrary to the rules appointed By this Bristow seeth that I am a great reader of the doctors For whosoeuer made this homily saith he he took those words out of the instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus in the first tome of councels where the wordes are not the writings of the Apostles but the writings of the see apostolike which are thought sufficient Whatsoeuer my reading be for the maker of the Homily I cannot depose but I trust he will not deny but it hath in al printed books gone vnder the name of Chrysostom and it containeth nothing vnworthy the iudgement of Chrysostom It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoeuer gathered that instruction borrowed those words out of this homily and from the writings of the Apostles peruerted them to the writings of the see apostolike many such borrowing peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles For admit that not Chrysostom but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of that Epistle or instruction Why did he alter them if hee thought the writings of the apostolike see sufficient to approue all catholike doctrine except perhaps his copie had also apostolica scripta that copie which Peter Crab followed in gathering the councels is corrupted Certaine it is the homily is auncient and made in the time when the Pelagian heresie begun to spring which was in the later time of Chrysostom therfore I haue vsed no fraude or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms wherto Bristow maketh no answere but denyeth the authority Likewise wher I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow the Canon or rule of the holy scripture but permit al to their owne cogitations Bristow answereth nothing but that Chrysost. answereth heretikes which said our Lord took not ture flesh as though his seÌ„teÌ„ce is not general against al heretiks which go besid the scripture Thirdly I saide if we be further vrged we wil allege that he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a theese To this Bristow replyeth that I will call Chrysostom a theefe by his owne saying for vsing tradition yea verely if he be obstinate and why not as well as S. Paul or an Angel accursed if they bring an other Gospel Secondly he saith as though he vseth not scripture which vseth tradition or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I aunswere such tradition as is warraÌ„ted by scripture we refuse not but if al your traditions were warraÌ„ted by scripture wher should be your vnwritten verities Thirdly saith Bristow the thing that he speaketh of is that Antichrist Pseudochrists cannot shewe any commission out of scripture I answere that proueth the Pope to be Antichrist who neither for his authoritie nor for his doctrine can shewe any commission out of the scripture Fourthly I saide we may bee as bolde with Chrysostome as he saide he would be with Paul himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somwhat more wee must not be ruled by Paul himselfe if he speake any thing that is his owne and any thing that is humaine but wee must obey the Apostle when he caryeth Christ speaking in him Bristow asketh whether he spake onely by scripture No verily but by reuelation he spake to S. Paul by audâ—ble and humaine voyce hee spake to the rest of the Apostles and whatsoeuer hee spake any way pertaining to our instruction is committed to writing and therefore I beleeue not Chrysostom alledging a tradition of the Apostles which is not founde in their writings Another place of Chrysostom I cite in Luke Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bredde heresies Therefore hee woulde haue heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures We would the same saith Bristowe but what maketh this for onely scripture to be of authoritie yes forsooth If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures that which commeth not through ignorance of the scriptures is no heresie And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures commeth not of ignorance of the scriptures therefore he that knoweth the scriptures knoweth all truth Vnto Leo the great alledging custome and tradition I oppose his owne saying for onely Scripture to be sufficient Ep. 10. They fall into this follie which when they be hindred by some obscuritie to know the truth haue not recourse to the wordes of the Prophets nor to the writinges of the Apostles nor to the authorities of the Gospell but to themselues He doth not say saith Bristowe that all truethes are expressed in the Scripture For he blameth the heretike for not hauing recourse to our common Creede as though there were any thing in our common Creede which is not expressed in the Scripture And if onely Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscuritie howe could they be blamed for not hauing recourse vnto them for that which they cannot find in them The words of the councel of Constantinople the 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these If all men had simply and without calliditie from the beginning receiued the Gospels preaching and bene content with the Apostles institutions the matters verily had beene well a fine and neither the authors of heresies nor the fautors of the Priestes had bene put to the paynes of conflictes but because the diuell not resting rayseth vp his squires therefore Christe also in time conuenient hath raised vp his warriours against them to wit the general
councels which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number So expressely saith Bristowe they auouch the authoritie of councels and you alledge them for only Scriptures I crie you mercie sir Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels as though the preaching of the Gospell and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient when they saide before if men would haue bene content with them there needed no councels But you adde that in their wordes there is no mention at all of Scripture but onely of preaching and teaching What I pray you is the Gospel which they should preach no scripture are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writinges At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan styrring vpp his squires doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures for what other worde doth Saint Paule commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection 2. Tim. 3. Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I opposed his owne auctority De Ver. Fid. in Proem Morall We knowe that we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde But all is not differing saith Bristowe that is not expressed in the Scripture Neither doe I say so but all is differing that can not be proued by Scripture And so saith Basil in his short definition to the first interrogation Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good without testimony of the holy Scriptures He answereth For as much as our sauiour Christ saith that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde Here you see he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures Yet Bristowe saith If I sawe the place my malice passeth For the wordes are these Who can be so madde that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe And it followeth But because of those things words that are in vse amongest vs some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted Concerning them that are omitted saith Bristowe We haue this rule to be subiect to other men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills In very deede I abridged the place and gaue the true sense because it is large But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language his wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost for he shall not speake of himselfe but what things so euer he shall heare the same shall he speake and of him selfe the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe And againe I haue not spoken of my selfe but the father which hath sent me he himselfe hath giuen me a commandement what I shall saie and speake And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall Therefore the things which I speake euen as the father hath said vnto me so I speake Who is come into so greate madnes that he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen vnto knowledge which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth both in minde and speache and deede but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes yea our Lorde Iesus Christ him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright lightning the eies Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture some are not spoken of concerning those that are written no liberty at all is giuen to any man neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie thou shalt not adde vnto it neither shalt thou take from it For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer which shall deuoure all those which shal be bolde to do any such thing And concerning those things which are not spoken of the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule saying all things are lawfull for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawfull for me but all things do not edify Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans So that in euery matter it is necessary to be subiect to God according to his commandement For it is written be ye subiect one to an other in the feare of Christ. And our Lord saith he that will among you be great let him be least of all and seruant of all that is to say estraunged from his owne will according to the imitation of our Lorde himselfe which saith I came downe from heauen not that I should doe mine owne will but the will of my father which hath sent me Where hath Bristowe that we should be subiect to other men in such thinges as are omitted by Scripture therefore not my malice but his ignorance passeth and that willful also although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral defin 26. Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men the confusion of wicked men Bristow saith he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures that they may haue a text redy at euery need as when we bidde them cast all away that is not written they haue this text ready where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary To holde the traditions which we haue learned whether it be by his Scripture or by his worde of mouth 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scriptures did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians when those to whom he preached daily searched the Scriptures tosee if those thinges were euen so Act. 17. And where I pray you did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth that you may obiect it to vs we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true as that he did put in writing if you can assure vs of it but seeing that is impossible and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing Basills rule must still stande in force that euery worde and deede must haue confirmation of holy scripture or else it is not good for all good workes are taught in the Scripture and all true doctrine may be
said not If Bristowe will say that none from Paganisme were conuerted to Christianitie by the Nouatians Donatistes or other heretikes I wil see what I haue in store to proue it The conuersion of the Moscouites by the Grecians Bristowe asketh whether it were before their schisme or after and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation and not in time of their schisme I reade the conuersion of the Moscouites to haue ben into the Greekish forme of Christianitie An. Do. 987. Ioachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo about which time the controuersie of the proceeding of the holy Ghost began to arise but long before the Greeke Church refused subiection to the Church and Pope of Rome which if you call but an emulation you ouerthrow the rocke of your owne religion breake off the band of your vnitie which you affirme to coÌ„sist only in subiection to the Romish bishop In the 11. Demaund of Brittanie where I saide the Actes of the Apostles is the best monument to shewe into what faith as well this Island as all other nations were conuerted by the Apostles Bristowe asketh Whether the Actes of the Apostles were written to shewe into what faith all nations were conuerted that were turned by the Apostles Yea verily they were written to shewe that the Apostles preached the same faith vnto the Iewes and Gentiles which they receiued of Christ according to the holie Scriptures and thereof the bâ—oke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the practise of the Apostles according to such instruction as thei receiued of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to any nation of the Gentiles There is mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to the Iewes and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles although it was neither possible nor needfull nor conuenient that they should all twelue in person goe to euery nation But what faith so euer any one preached to any nation the same did they all preach without difference in euerie nation that they conuerted There is not one of the articles of the Creede necessarie to saluation but it is to be proued by the Actes of the Apostles that they did preach it But Bristowe wil tell vs an other cause why that booke was written No sir saith he that booke was written to shewe onely the beginning of the Church according to the prophets to wit at IerusaleÌ„ among the Iewes and the taking of it from them for their deserts and giuing it to the Gentiles euen from Ierusalem the head of the Iewes to Rome the head of the Gentiles If this were the only purpose of the Euangelist as Bristowe most impudently affirmeth he should haue spared much labour in setting foorth the sermons and summe of the doctrine which the Apostles preached both to the Iewes and Gentiles But let vs heare Bristowe goe forward And there Saint Luke endeth it not caring to tell so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paule in whose person this translation was wrought and not in S. Peters for causes too long to be here rendered Thou must stand before the Emperor Because his purpose was no more but to shewe the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so to leade them to it to knowe what are the particulars that the Apostles taught If this be true all the testimonie and report that he maketh of their doctrine was beside his purpose yea the historie of the gospell which he writ of all things that Iesus beganne to do and teach was out of this purpose And he tooke the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus to teach him the certaintie of those things wherof he had bene instructed as Saint Luke him selfe had receiued of the Apostles them selues whereas according to Bristowes imaginatiue purpose seeing there had ben manie writings of the gospel alreadie he should haue sent him home to the newe Ierusalem of the Christians and so haue left him to it to knowe what are the particulars the Apostles taught But where on gods name learne wee that whore of Babylon that sitteth vpon the seuen hilles Apoc. 17. to be this newe Ierusalem on earth when S. Paul Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly Ierusalem vnto the heauenly IerusaleÌ„ which is aboue and is the mother of vs all not to an other Ierusalem on earth and that the mother of all abhominations of the earth Apoc. 17. And howe falleth it out that S. Luke hauing a purpose so long and certainely continued and so necessarie for the Church not in one word commendeth to vs this newe Ierusalem on the seuen hils nor in one word maketh mention of that which only changeth if any thing can chaunge hell into heauen Rome into Ierusalem namely the translation of Peters chaire or his person or the least haire of his head or thred of his garment to Rome But this belike is reserued among the Apocriphal causes as these are why the translation was in the person of S. Paule and not of S. Peter Where I required one of those nations to whome the Apostles preached purgatorie or praier for the dead to be named out of the Actes of the Apostles Bristowe answereth continuing his former speach And so withall you haue one of those nations named and that no common one to wit the Romanes which receiued of the Apostles not only that article you require but all the rest which at this time it hath c. When this is shewed out of the Actes of the Apostles or any other Canonical scripture I am answered Where I require it to be proued that the same Apostle which first conuerted Britanie taught praiers or sacrifice for the deade Bristowe answereth If you require vs to proue it out of the Scripture considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conuersion you declare your selfe to be but a pratler At the least wise you declare that you cannot proue it out of the scriptures But we can proue out of the scriptures euery article that we beleeue to haue bene taught by that Apostle or Apostolike man whosoeuer first preached the saith of Christ in this lande although our landes conuersion be not by name mentioned in scripture Yet seeing the doctrine of euerie one of the Apostles was the same that is expressed in the scriptures we are able to proue that he preached the same which we beleue considering that we beleue al that is written in the holy scriptures As for the confirmation of Eleutherius which Bristowe saith was an accomplishing of that which was begun by the Apostles Romanes if he meane of a supply of doctrine it is false for Christianitie hauing bene in Brittanie planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius and continued more then a 100. yeares before Eleutheâ—ius was perfect Christianitie To passe ouer that peâ—ke of troubles in which Bristow placeth me because I do
of scripture as I brought to proue the sinne against the holie Ghost to be irremissible First the place of 1. Iohn 5. he saith is meant of them that be deade and damned in hell as he hath taught vs cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation as false and newe he citeth Augustine in ret li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I holde but afterward he addeth if he end his life in this peruersitie For we must despaire of no man be he neuer so wicked so long as he is in this life Neither is praier made vnwisely for him who is not despaired of Here are two contrarie expositions of one man in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place and not whether better or last pleased the authour of them That no man is to be despaired of while he liueth as it is contrarie to the scripture so to the practise of the Church which refused to pray for Iulianus the apostata and prayed to God against him Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon denounced him to his face to be impious and an apostata and enimie of God Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo lib. 5. cap. 4. The second text Heb. 6. Bristowe expoundeth it of falling through frailtie in persecution of them which can not be renewed by baptisme but the Apostle saith expressely by repentance and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling but of prolapsion or falling cleane away from Christ with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption The terrible denuntiation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristowe faith he speaketh it not to driue them to desperation but to moue them to repentance What if that be graunted that by shewing the daunger of malitious obstinacie which groweth to irremissible wickednes he should admonish them to beware in time as the Apostle doth Heb. 6. Doth it therefore followe that no man sinneth irremissiblie while he liueth Although it is plaine that our sauiour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickednes that nothing could reclay me them or bring them to repētance But Bristow would make me contrarie to my selfe who though in expresse words I count D. Allen his fellowes such as by you Heb. 6. cannot repent yet do exhort them truly to repent c. Pur. 461. But how proueth he that I count Allen and his fellowes such as cannot repent Forsooth because I say they haue sometime beene lightened and tasted of the good gifte of God Why sir are all such come to prolapsion I trow not In deede I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion that are curable Whether Allen were euer a protestant I know not but certaine I am that some of his fellowes haue beene lightned and were protestants of whom I speake and not of him If I say Bristow and his fellowes which are lay-men doe I say Bristow is a lay man This wilfull malicious cauilling Bristow if you take not heede of it in time argueth that you are fallen verie deepe if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasie But this is a cunning cōforter of them that are in desperation which affirmeth that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sinne and blasphemie shall not be remitted then he saith that all other sinne and blasphemie shal be remitted and therfore many one yea and aboue all number may be and is forgiuen the sinne against the holy ghost He meaneth because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiuen But if that condition were to be vnderstoode in them also that sin against the holy ghost what distinction were there for which he should say that blasphemie and sinne shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come Such a sinner hath no remission of sinnes but is guiltie of eternal damnation For that none shal be forgiuen without repentance as euerie man knew without that distinction But Bristow would haue it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgiue the sinne against the holy ghost and so he forgaue one of those Pharisees and he the verie worst of them all namely S. Paule who had bin indeede a Pharisee as he cōfesseth Act. 23. 26. but none of those Pharisees for he knewe not Christ in the flesh 2. Cor 5. yea he had beene a persecuter and a blasphemer as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees for he was an elect vessel of God and his persecution and blasphemie was not of malice or sinne against the holy ghost but of ignorance and blinde zeale of God for he addeth immediatly but I obteined mercie because I did it ignorantly in vnbeleefe As for those Pharisees against whom our Sauiour Christ thundreth that iudgement did blaspheme the holy ghost against their owne conscience and knowledge malitiously attributing vnto the diuell that which they knew to be the finger of God That which I speake out of Samuel Ieremie and Ezekiel Bristow saith is all spoken in one sense of temporall matters to wit of casting Saule from his kingdome and the Iewes into captiuitie But except the persons had bene incurable God would haue beene intreated to giue them repētance to haue continued Saule in his kingdome and the people in their countrie The rule that Ezechiel 33. is vnderstoode of sinnes that are not against the holy ghost as the examples doe plainely declare The 8. poynt is that strange interpretation of the creede a◠he calleth it Christ descended into hell to redeeme vs out of hell by suffering the wrath of God for our sinnes Heb. 5. First Bristow saith there is neuer a word of that article and much lesse of the interpretation thereof in that chapter yet after to proue that to bee prayer which I saide was a complaint as though it might not be be a complayning prayer he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ who in the daies of his flesh with a mightie crie and with teares offered vp prayers and supplications to him that was able to saue him out of death and was heard from his feare or from that he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by this text Bristow would proue that Christ was not forsaken of his father no not corporally although he complayned that he was forsaken as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed when he sayde My God my God why hast thou forsaken me which to him that was God was greater torment of hell then any heart of man can conceiue And therefore Bristow which maketh all to stand in the bodilie death of Christ and raileth at Caluine for shewing how necessarie it was for Christ to suffer in soule as much as in body for the redemption of the whole man doth nothing but cauil slaūder one while fayning that Caluine should make two deathes of Christ another while that he was in feare lest he should haue
kept 350. yeres past was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity but only of the Papistes no more was any that followed at Constance Basil Trent nor yet that of Florence in which although there were some Grecians yet the councell of Basil was against it and many Orientall Churches that were neuer called to it neither was there any thing for transubstantiatioÌ„ or adoration therein agreed by the Grecians that were there For in the last session it is thus recorded Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis summus pontifex petiit vt de diuina panis transmutatione quae quidem quarta quaestis fuiâ— in Synodo ageretur At Graeci dixerunt se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae â—auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse cùm pro illa tantâ—m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit Which foure questions beeing dissolued the Pope desired that of the diuine transmutation of the bread which was the fourth matter in controuersie it might bee treated in the synode But the Grecians sayed that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental Church coulde handle none other question seeing the synode was called together for that only question of the proceeding of the holy Ghost Fourthly although Berengarius was condemned by three Popish councels and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures and the iudgement of all the auncient Church for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time the same being nowe taught in England is true doctrine and no heresie Wherefore none of the foure certeinties are certeine and true on Sanders side But he will examine vs what Gospell what Church what councels we haue First he saith we can bring no Gospel where it is writen This is the figure of my body Neither doe we affirme that it is onely a figure of his body nor denye that it is his body after a certeine manner as Augustine sayth And Sander will not deny but that it is a figure which were not true except it were proued out of the Gospell which speaking of the Cuppe sayth This is the newe Testament in my bloud And what Gospell doeth Sander bring saying This bread is turned into my body To the seconde demaunde I answere The primitiue Churche for sixe hundred yeares did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament as wee doe during which time as there was no controuersie so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine As there are many other articles agreed on both partes which were neuer decreed in generall Councels because there neuer was question about them But when the question did arise it was in the time of the prophecyed defection from Christ vnto Antichrist and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it neither yet can by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ and the tyrannie of heathen Princes which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie But the first sixe hundred yeares saith Sander make not for the Sacraments which is declared inuincibly by three meanes First diuerse fathers require vs instantly to beleeue these wordes This is my body c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense And yet no wise man will require vs to beleeue figuratiue wordes O shamelesse and senselesse heretike will not euery wise man require vs to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture Are not these wordes true although they be contrarie to naturall reason sense The rocke was Christ I am the true vine I am the doore c and if these wordes are true are they not to be beleeued of vs in their true meaning euen so these wordes This is my body are true in their meaning and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vnto them The seconde reason is that the same fathers teache expressely that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries which is a lowd lye vnderstanding it of popish adoration The third reason is because the fathers teache that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament But this is false for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ which is by his incarnation for our coniunction by the sacrament is neither naturall nor corporall but spirituall vnto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vs. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding the sixe hundred yeres make still for vs. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres sayeth Sander by the writings of the fathers of those times because none of them goeth about to prooue that the body of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie or haue vsed such wordes as the Sacramentaries do now vse If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely although his negatiues are not all true For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes the sacrament to be the very body of Christ Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament it argueth that none in their time did worship it seeing you Papistes confesse that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake if it be not consecrated and therefore teach men to worship it with this condition when they see it if it be consecrated Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie weâ— vse when we teache that it is a figure a token a representation a signification a similitude a symbole a type of the body and bloud of Christ and what wordes soeuer wee vse wee vtter none contrary to their meaning and teaching of the holy sacrament But saith Sander that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe it hindereth not the reall presence because signes instituted by Christ haue reall trueth in euery sacrament Neither doe wee say the contrarie but that the reall trueth of Christes body is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament of the supper euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vs in the sacrament of baptisme and yet we deny the breade which is the signe to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ euen as we deny the water which is likewise the signe to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost But the fathers saith Sander are not against the doctrine of the Papistes because no Papist findeth fault with them By the same reason he might proue that none of the Iurie which haue found a theefe guiltie did goe against him because the theefe challenged none of them And yet
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
be the worthier of the two but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes The authority of Dionysius which he voucheth as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie hath often bene disproued to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares seing neither Eusebius nor Hierom nor Germadius in their seueral times did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Arâ—opagite S. Paules disciple But where the Apologie confesseth the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament a signe and an euident token of the bodie of Christ Sander saith it is constrained to beleeue many vnwriten verities and will not beleeue that only which is written in the scripture of this supper that it is the body and bloud of Christ. Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture therefore they be vnwritten verities The froward man himselfe in the Chapter last before confessed that mysterium in the Greeke was the same that is called Sacramentum in Latine If therefore the Lordes supper be called in Greeke mysterium we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament For where S. Paul saith let a man thus esteeme vs as the ministers of Christ and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God who doubteth but vnder the name of mysteries the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended although the name of mystery be larger in Greke then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe yet in spight of the diuell the name of mysterie and Sacrament is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme Likewise the name of signe being giuen by the holy ghost vsually to other Sacramentes by analogie must likewise apperteine to this SacrameÌ„t Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant betweene God and the people Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe is called a signe and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision a seale of iustification Last of all hauing found in the scriptures the Lords supper to be a Sacrament signe or seale the argument of relatiues leadeth vs by the hand to cal it an euident signe or token of the body bloud of Christ giuen for vs for that is the thing signified which is proued by these words This is my body which is giuen for you c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer which was the Sacrament signe or euident token of the Passingouer and not the Passeouer it self But Sander vrgeth vs to answer whether the signe of the body and the body it self may stande together or no I answere him plainly except he destroye the nature of things opposite the signe and the thing signified cannot stande together at one time and in one respect as it is vnpossible that Abraham can be the father of Isaac and the sonne of Isaac also But in diuerse respectes they may stande together as Abraham is the father of Isaac and the sonne of Therah So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vs and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe But as it is a diuine mysterie and heauenly seale it is truely called that whereof it maketh assurance namely the bodye and bloud of Christe euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament whereof it is a seale and assurance and as baptisme is called regeneration beeing a seale and assurance therof vnto the children of God CHAP. X. That the supper of our Lorde is both the signe of Christes bodie and also his true bodie euen as it is a sacrament He requireth diligent eare as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause when in deede it ouerthroweth himselfe altogether For he will shewe that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must needes haue the same trueth present whereof it is the sacrament Which being graunted it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament then in the other seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ sayth he cannot institute a false signe or token I say so also and withall I say that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament which were signes and tokens of Christ Christ was truely present in them euen as truely as in our Sacramentes and therefore Saint Paul teacheth that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall drinke that wee doe for they dranke of the spirituall rocke which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ as he doeth exhibit in baptisme and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament which were of his institution we might soone be agreed But in the meane time you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument Other matters not incident to the present controuersie I omitt as that the holy ghost in baptisme at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther then to the time of washing with water Likewise that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine is the Sacrament Whereby it followeth that when the sound of the wordes is once past it is no longer a Sacrament and consequently the Papistes must not call that which they worship the Sacrament of the altar c. CAP. XI What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper and what a Sacrament is There be if we beleeue Sander foure kinde of signes in the Sacrament of the altar The first be tokens making consecrating the Eucharist which are the words of coÌ„secratioÌ„ the second be signes of it made which are the accidents of bread wine The third a signification of the Church And the fourth eating is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come Of these foure the first must be chiefly respected which is an outward tokeÌ„ of an inward trueth the outward token is called the Sacrament the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine is this A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace Out of this diffinition which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence for if the bodie be not present saith he the words make a false tokeÌ„ I denie the consequence for the wordes make a true token and yet the body is not present after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence His exemplification of the order of priesthood giuen to the Apostles by these words Hoc facite doe and make this is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another For we denie the power of making which he pretendeth there to be giuen affirming that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution and shewing the vse thereof His second argument is that Christ spake not
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
trueth of that bodie whereof the visible sacrament was a signe token and argument and so vsed by Tertullian againste the Marcionites that likewise denyed the veritie of Christes body Wherefore in this Chapter Sander prooueth nothing lesse then in the title he promiseth CAP. IX That no man possibly can bee condemned for beleeuing the bodie of Christ to bee really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar His title is of no man possibly but his demonstration is a simple poore man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers vpon coulour of Christes almightie power and will pretended in promising that he will giue his fleshe and wordes in saying this is my body As for them that are simplie deceaued they stand or fal to God I will neither iudge of their condemnation nor absolution But such as obstinately defende that error contrarie to their owne conscience as a great number of the Papistes which pretende faith and seeke nothing else but the ouerthrowe of faith and the glorie of God for as much as that error employeth a deniall of the trueth of Christes humanitie and consequentlie the trueth of the resurrection of our bodies which must be made like vnto the glorious bodie of Christ and inferreth manifest Idolatrie in worshipping that for GOD which is a meere creature I see not howe they can escape eternall damnation As for their defence which Sander maketh is friuolous First of the almightie power of God which is to doe whatsoeuer he will and is agreable to his glorie and not whatsoeuer we will imagine He can not therfore make his body to be in many places at once or to bee without dimension of quantitie or to bee inuisible and intangible because hee hath determined of his will to the contrarie in fiue hundreth places of scripture which testifie of the trueth of his humanitie like vnto his bretheren in all poyntes without sinne Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotencie that hee can not doe contrarie to his will which were against his owne glorie It is no infirmitie in God that he cannot lye that hee cannot sinne that he cannot denie himselfe nor doe contrarie to his will glory but an argument of his power wisedome and goodnesse And whereas Sander saith that Christ hath determined his will in saying The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world I answere hee hath determined no such will of giuing his flesh in the Sacrament by these wordes but of giuing his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the worlde which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith not onely in the supper but in baptisme without both the sacraments by faith onely which was eaten of all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ without the eating of which breade of life no mortall creature can bee partaker of eternall life Further where Sander saith that Christ saide This is my bodie and gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragments or peeces whereby he shewed that hee made the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuers places c I answere he declared no will of multiplying his bodie in diuers places at one time by such words or fact For seeing he had so often before testified the truth of his humanity in somuch that he termed himselfe vsually the sonne of man and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for triall of the truth of his resurrection these wordes were not sufficient to teach his disciples that his natural bodie could at one time be visible and inuisible tangible and intangible in locall situation and not in locall situation to be whole in one place and whole in manie places to haue quantitie actually of length bredth and thickenes to haue no quantitie actually of length breadth thicknes these contradictions I say being against nature reasoÌ„ sense his former doctrine and the scriptures touching the trueth of his naturall bodie and his argument taken of the senses after his resuâ—rection coulde not bee perswaded with onely saying This is my bodie for as much as they had hearde him saye manie thinges in like phrase where no like vnderstanding could be imagined and the scripture speaking of the sacraments vseth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacramentes Wherefore there is no doubt but the disciples vnderstood these words figuratiuely sacramentally and spiritually And concerning the fragments and peeces whereof Sander speaketh he is a shamed to call them fragments or peeces of bread as Cyrillus doth of whom he borowed the phrase lest he should acknowledge breade to be any part of the Sacrament But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ concerning transubstantiation of the breade into his bodie which euen the schoolemen affirme cannot be prooued out of the scriptures And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme induceth Christ saying that one of his works cannot be contrarie to another seeing his ascension abiding in heauen and comming from thence to iudgement are contrarie to this imagined presence and those articles are plainely and manifestly set forth to be beleeued howe can these onely foure wordes This is my bodie which may haue another interpretation agreeable to all the sayings and workes of God make such a declaration of the will of Christ as thereby the trueth of his humanitie remaining after it was assumed of the deitie and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon the ascension abyding of Christ in heauen and his comming from thence to iudgement although in words they be not denyed yet are and must be brought in doubt question and vncerteintie The other false bragges of this interpretation vniuersally receiued and alwayes taught and beleeued I omitte with his shameles slaunders of Luthers life and death wherof the one hath beene sufficiently and many times confuted the other is so well knowen and to so manie wise and godly with whom he liued and among whom he dyed that next vnto the autoritie of the scriptures no one thing more discouereth the falshood of the Papists then their impudeÌ„t slanders and lyes maliciously deuised against the true professors of the Gospel The seuenth Booke To the Preface SAnder hauing finished the sixt booke supposed to haue ended his labour but then came forth the B. of Salisburies replie vnto Doctor Hardings booke wherevpon he was moued to answere that article which concerned the reall presence But because the words of both their bookes were too large to bee inserted in this his volume hee hath chosen the pyth of either as hee affirmeth with such fidelitie as Master Iewell should finde no fault with him For my part I was likewise purposed to haue omitted the answere of this appendix partly because Master Iewels defense of the Apologie being set foorth after this booke of Sander the chiefe matters are therein by Master Iewel himselfe wayed and
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned
and the loue of God Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith that they are not the interpretations of the councell whose interpretation they are not bounde to defende but onely their definitions but they are the interpretations of particular persons To this I answere they are contained in the synodal book sent into the Westerne Churches to stirre them vp to idolatrie which booke was aunswered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commaundement and in his name therefore they are approued by the councell yea some of them are contained also in that report of the councell which is set downe in the bookes of councels The text of lighting a candell and putting it vnder a bushel is affirmed of Bristowe to be well applyed in the Epistle of Constantinus his mother to the synod But he is deceiued For there is no argument of setting of images vpon the altar drawne out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal aboue rehearsed confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus The seconde text God made man according to his image therefore we must haue images in the Church Bristowe confesseth to bee contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperour But the same is approued in the councell and is the popes Epistle whose credit is greater with you than the councels But he doth not conclude you say that therfore we must haue images in the Church What then forsooth that a◠Adam being the image of God is to be honoured so euery image is holy that i◠made in the name of God be it an image of Angels prophets Apostles martyrs or iust persons This conclusion conteineth more thē I vrged namely the worshiping of images not the making of thē only And because you are so impudēt to say it is not the coūcel but pope Adrianus that so saith c I wil let the reader vnderstand that in the seconde action there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian reade in the synode one to the Emperours the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople Afterward Peter and Peters liuetenants of the Pope required Tharasius to declare whether he cōsented to the Popes letters or no. Tharasius answered that concerning the worshiping of images he did allow the Popes letters Thē said the Synod Vniuersa sancta Synodus c. The whole holy synod doth so beleeue and teach Peter and Peters Legates of the sea Aposto like saide Let the holy synode tell vs whether it receiue the letters of the most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synode aunswered we follow them we receiue them and allowe them The 3. text As we haue heard so we haue seene in the citie of our God ps 48. to proue that God must not be knowne by onely hearing of his word but also by sight of images Bristowe affirmeth that it is not the councell that citeth it but a Deacon called Epiphanius which readeth it to the councell out of a booke of his owne I answere hee readeth it with approbation and good liking of the councell which in effect is al one But he citeth it not saith Bristowe to shew how God must be knowne but about the storie of Christs manhoode nor to proue immediately that the said story must be painted c. as though God can be knowne but by Christ for knowledge of whom by imagery he cyteth this text of the Canticle also Can. 2. shew me thy face let me heare thy voyce And whether it be immediately or mediately certain it is that he citeth this text Pal. 48. to proue that the pictures of saincts are rightly deliuered in the Church none otherwise then the reading of the holy gospel The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense falsified in words is Ioan. 10. ver 29. My father which gaue them vnto me speaking of his sheep is greater then al. Which text in the Councell of Lateran holden vnder Pope Innocent the thirde is falsified in words after this manner Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus That whiche the father hath giuen me is greater then all and interpreted to proue the eternall begetting of Christ of the substance of his father To this Bristow aunswereth her◠is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense What sense Allen hath of false interpretation I knowe not sure I am that a text cannot be truely interpreted in sense when it is corrupted in wordes which make the sense Secondly he saith that of my two crimes I must strike out one for supposing the text to be as the councell alledgeth it the interpretation is not vnapt But I reply supposing the text to be as it is in deede Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needes drawe with it not onely an vnapt but also a wrong interpretation But what couler of reason haue you saith he that the councell hath falsified the words of that text Is it not in the vulgar Latine translation verbatim as the councell alledgeth it yes verily And so is the councell cleared of that crime also Not so soone as you weene for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture haue crept into your translation it had beene the councels dutie not to haue winked at it if it could haue seene it much lesse to haue confirmed it so farre forth as of so many texts which cleerely proue Christ to bee consubstantiall with his father it coulde finde none but take this corrupted and falsified text But the most auncient Latine writers saint Augustine saint Ambrose and saint Hilarie doe reade iumpe as we doe saith Bristowe That doth not amende the matter one whit but sheweth the errour of the Latine Church to haue the longer continued which in the councell of Lateran if it could haue espied it ought rather to haue bene reformed then confirmed But will you chaunge your copie saith Bristowe and frame your accusation anewe against the translation as differing from the Originall that is from the Greeke Sir I neede not chaunge my copie for my accusation is alreadie framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrarie to the originall trueth yet Bristowe goeth on But afore you doe so take my counsaile with you and bee sure first that the Greeke is so as you say For some Greeke copies of auncient also had euen as we haue as namely the copie which saint Cyrill being a Greeke Doctor expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in Ioan. cap. 10. In deede it were not amisse to take the councell of such a learned Grecian as Bristowe is that I might bee sure howe the Greeke text is For hee can tell me of auncient Greeke copies yea namely of that which saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor did followe and expounde which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text Verely the sight of such a copie woulde doe mee great pleasure But vntill I may see it I will suspende my iudgement and in the meane time I woulde borrowe a worde or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower
nor Augustine reproued by scripture that which in Aerius they coÌ„pted to be an error But the case is so cleare saith Bristow that the very aduersary confesseth that it was the Catholik Church that iudged Aerius to be an heretike Yea sir for his Arrianisme but I neuer coÌ„fessed neither can you euer prooue that any iudgement of the Catholike Church in general councel passed against Aerius for denying prayer for the dead before the dayes of Epiphanius or Augustine although the error of prayer for the â—ead in that age was commonly receyued not vpon any good ground of Canonical scripture but vpon a corrupt custome first brought in by heretikes Afterward where I following an allegorie of dogges vsed by Allen tell him that hee must not teach his scholers to barke baule against vs nothing but The Church the Church like â—inkers curres c. he cryeth out in the margent O worthy estimation that he hath of the Church as though I think lesse worthily of the Church because I deride the vaine boasting of the name of the Church in theÌ„ which are nothing lesse then the true church Neither do I appoint mine enimy not to inuade me with a gunne as he saith when I make the scripture onely to be my weapon both inuasiue and defensiue But it is a great absurditie as he â—weeneth that I say an heretike is he which in the Church obstinately mainteyneth an opinion contrarie to the scriptures seeing S. Iohn saith exierunt a nobis they are gone out from vs. And if an heretikee be a man in the Church we are cockesure with all heretikes and the Papistes onely in daunger Why Bristow make ye no difference betweene him that is in the Church and him the is of the Church They be not al meÌ„bers of the Church that be in the Church and therfore S. Iohn saith of them that are gone froÌ„ vs If they had bene of vs they would haue tarried with vs. And doe you account him an heretike that holdeth an error cleane out of the Church then may you count all Paganes Turkes and Iewes to be heretikes What say you of Antichrist that sitteth euer in the Temple of God it helpeth not heretikes that they rise vp in the visible Church from whence also they are often times cast out so long as they bee not members of the body of Christ which is the inuisible Church and heauenly Ierusalem which is the mother of vs all Where I sayde that whosoeuer holdeth an opinion obstinately which hee is not able to proue by the worde of God although hee haue many authors before him yet hee is neuerthelesse an heretike Bristowe addeth in the margent though it bee S. Augustine himselfe and though he holde the foundation heere cap. 5. Touching the former part I say not onely though it were Saint Augustine but although it were Saint Peter himselfe or an Angell from heauen Gal. 1. Touching the later parte I aunswere my meaning is of such opinions as are against the foundation and so is my whole discourse purg 412. whence this saying is borowed Agayne where hee concludeth that I confesse Aerius Iouinian and Vigilantius to haue beene condemned by the true Church of Christ in such poyntes of doctrine as wee agree with him I aunswere as before of Aerius alone I neuer made such confession In that I refuse to finde the firste authors of all their errors he saith I am faine to flee to my colde exception of onely scripture as though to iustifie our doctrine by the Apostles and that so sensibly were not inough O sensible iustification by which all errors whose first authors cannot be found must be layd vpon the Apostles But most ridiculous of all is Fulke where he coÌ„meth in with this exception vpoÌ„ Tertullians rule Id esse verum c. That is true what soeuer is first that is false forged which is later But how shall the first doctrine bee knowne but by the worde of God wherein all the doctrine of God is taught What is here I pray you to bee laughed at Forsooth Bristowe saith Tâ—â—â—ullian hath there an other rule against such heresies as presumed to say their founders liued in the Apostles time But this rule hee giueth against all such as rise any time after as Aerius Luther Caluine c. bidding vs consider what was taught and belecued immediatly before they arose for that vndâ—ubâ—â—dly is the trueth and their later doctrine is falshood But what if Bristow take Richard for Robert is not he then ridiculous The rule of Tertullian whereof I speake Purg. 410. Ar. 42. is written in his booke aduersus Praxeam although Allen doe falsely quote it de praescriptionibus But what if Tertullian euen in this rule giuen against heretikes in his booke de praescriptionibus doe expresly affirme the worde of God to bee the triall of that which 〈◊〉 former and true to conuince that which is latter and â—lse is not Bristowe most ridiculous of all His words â—e these Sed ab excessu reuertar ad principalitateÌ„ veritatis â—osteritatem mendaciâ—atis deputandam ex illius quoque parabo 〈…〉 patrocinio quae bonum semen frumenti a Domino seminatum â—rimò constituit auenarum aut sterilis foeni adulterium ab iniâ—ico diabolo postea superducit Propriè enim doctrinarum diâ—tinctionem figurat quia alibi verbum Dei seminis similiâ—do est Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum â—erum quod sit prius tradiâ—â—m id autem extraneum salâ—um quod sie posterius immissum Ea sententia manebit aduerâ—s posteriores quasque haereses quibus nulla constantia de conâ—ciencia compettt ad defendendam sibi veritatem But from this â—xcesse I will returne to shew the priority of truth poâ—terioritie of falshood euen out of the defence of the parable â—hich first of al setteth forth the good seed of wheat sowne â—y our Lorde and afterwarde bringeth on the counâ—erfeiting of Otes or baren grasse by the enemie the â—iuel For it figureth properly the difference of doctrines â—ecause elsewhere also the worde of GOD is the siâ—ilitude of seede So by the very order it is made maâ—ifest that to bee the Lordes true which was formost â—eliuered that to be straunge and false which is cast in â—fterward This decree shal remain against later heresies whatsoeuer which haue no constaÌ„cie of conscieÌ„ce to deâ—end the truth to be on the irside Where is there here any word of Bristows glosse of Tertullian bidding vs consider c I thinke he had not redde the place in Tertullian himself but followed some papistes collection vpon it and because hee coulde not auoyde that which I sayd hee thought it best by calling it so much and so often ridiculous to laugh it out as they say when hee was not able otherwise to aunswere it Likewise I sayd that we refuse not the rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis concerning antiquitie so you can prooue God to