sacrifice is made celebrated with prayer as Hierom saith by the pâ—iestes prayers What are then the wordes of consecration And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also was Domus orationis the howse of prayer Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer So is Tertullian answered Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure doth sanctifie the sacrifice and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth they say the same Yea doe Bristowe Is the sacrifice you offer the bodie of Christ Yea doth the conscience of the offerer sanctifie the body of Christ Out vpon thee filthie blasphemous dogge if thou dare affirme it But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine As though that were the question Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion no lesse then we doe in the masse What newes is this doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse I thinke euen the same for none that communicate with Caluine doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood and no more doe you although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it In the 25. demaund of Monkes where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes Bristowe saith in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes and Idolatrie we haue spoyled the Church of God of great vtilitie But he saith further they were votaries and so they be not in colledges of studentes their vowes were not such that could make them other then students they vowed to serue God vprightly and his Church when they were called and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same forsake this holie purpose haue smale commendation among studentes I know in time superstition preuailed and that which first was free at last became coact and that which was of conueencie was thought of necessitie euen as true religion declined and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition In the 27. demaund of Councels where I proue that Councels may erre First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel Bristowe saith the prayer is not in respect for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members when in the prayer they expresly declare their feare lest ignorance hath driuen them into error which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life but of their error in decrees seeing the prayer is appropriate vnto the Councel And that the wordes going before after do manifestly declare Te in nostris principiis c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes that is that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error that to our perfect desires thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke And because our conscience accusing vs we doe fainte for feare lest either ignorance hath drawne vs into errror or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vs to decline from iustice therfore we desire thee we pray thee that if we haue drawne vnto vs any offence in the celebritie of this Councell thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it and to make it remissible Who would pray thus in the name of the whole Councell which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error That I alledge out of Augustine de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed the later by the former Bristowe vnderstandeth of Councells not confirmed by the Pope which may be reformed euen by the see Apostolike alone That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells where lacketh any necessarie confirmation This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops in possibility of erring in doctrine not excepting the Bishop of Rome then prouinciall last of all generall Councells onely the scripture cannot be amended as that which hath no error in it Where I saide the Councells are receiued because they decreed truly according to the worde of God and not the truth receiued because it was decreed in Councells Bristowe saith I might as well say the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures But I say the comparison is not like For truth is not so necessarilie bound vnto generall Councells as it is to the holy scriptures and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures It followeth not so of councells that what soeuer they haue decreed is truth although the Bishop of Rome haue confirmed them Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine which is an argument sufficient to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions The pope caÌ„not erre The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope cannot erre In the 28. demaunde of the See Apostolike where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing the Bishop of Rome were not heretikes Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure which is no matter in question saith he vsurped no authoritie nor was so charged but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent it would seeme likewise to many who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops that withstoode Victor confessed that he had authoritie ouer them or that he could not erre But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure seeing he followeth as he thought the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles Likewise Eusebius saith that Victor was sharply reproued of many and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce whom he gouerned Yea he saith expresly that Victor
authoritie or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles And consequently there is no cause to thinke that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vpon them for departing from that see In the 29. Demaund of Traditions where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians which accused the scriptures of imperfection saying that they are ambiguous and that the trueth can not be found in them by such as knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth c. Bristowe answereth that S. Irenee him selfe as al Catholikes will haue both scripture and tradition Yea sir but what tradition any trueth of doctrine conserued by tradition which is not contained in the holie scriptures nothing lesse But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures Hunc patrem c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches they that wil may learne out of the scripture it selfe and vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered is contained in their writinges and it is still an hereticall assertion to say that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing but some by word of mouth In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie where I affirme the order of the Apostles schoole is first to heare the word of God preached and then to beleeue Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend that he first beleeued and afterward sought to vnderstand Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine lib Retr 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to haue ben for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught by most certaine reason what was true whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles without requiring a reason of their doctrine howe vaine it is I leaue to children to laugh at seeing I speak not of reason but of the word of God preached which must needes goe before faith Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil cred cap. 13. where he saith It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion But howe should faith be persuaded but by the preaching of the word of God without curious inquisition according to the reason of man Where I say that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God Bristow derideth their authoritie who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word as though the Popish superiors might not or their supreme head although beside so many blasphemous errors as he holdeth wherof the controuersie is with the Papistes it haue not bene oft proued that diuers Popes haue bene condemned euen by generall Councels for heretikes Where I saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops Bristowe saith if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme I would not so say But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke who died soudenly but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things appeareth but the contrarie Where I saide that to beleeue the Catholike Church is not to beleeue all and euery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine Bristowe would haue me suppose the Apostles had said Credo S. Romanam ecclesiam and then asketh howe I would haue construed it Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas c. But if the Apostles would haue taught vs to giue credite to the Church of Rome in all things they would haue taught vs to say Credo Romanae ecclesiae And Credo scripturis Canonicis duodecim Apostolis quatuor Euangelistis c. I giue credite to the holy scriptures to the twelue Apostles and to the foure Euangelistes For Credo with an Accusatiue case to signifie I giue credite howe so euer you deride my grammatication will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme as he is reported to haue done once for fiatur In the 35. Demand of Vnitie where I said the Church may be called the house of peace because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith Bristowe saith by this reason many olde heresies were with in the house of peace because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest may breake peace as that of quartadecimani who disagreed onely in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion might be in the house of peace as Irenaeus testifieth if obstinate contempt of generall order did not make a schisme and of a schisme an heresie as in the Donatistes Otherwise difference in a ceremonie as I said maketh not diuision of faith Bristowe saith yes if they holde their ceremonie necessarie But then they holde it not as a ceremonie or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull But that maketh not diuision Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie against Anicetus yet he was not diuided from him for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus nor Anicetus with him No more doe they among vs that differ in opinion of ceremonies except some fewe schismaticall heades that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes Bristowe saith are such as may be among Christians as Augustine testifieth Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel if Bristowe may be beleeued If we might haue a Christiā generall Councel for such matters as are in controuersie among vs I doubt not but we should agree better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie remaineth still among you notwithstanding the Florentine Councel which you say most impudently that I confesse to haue resolued the matter when an other Councel and an other Pope at the same time
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
so farre forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them alâ—â—ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the â—criptures After this he gathereth that I place all in a mans owne 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men but to reade the scriptures 〈…〉 onferre the places and so gather the meaning by him selfe So that with him it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my 〈…〉 ule Magnificè igitur salubriter c. Magnificallye â—herefore and wholesomely the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures that with open places hee â—ight satisfie hunger with darke places he might wype â—ff lothsomnesse for nothing in a manner is brought â—ut of those obscurities which may not bee founde in â—ome other place most plainely spoken It is nothing â—hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scripâ—ures by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the interpretors But if diligence may doe so much hee telâ—â—th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semiâ—arie for Englande vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen which prooueth it selfe to bee a semiâ—arie of treason in much reading and conferring of the scriptures with all other helpes and meanes whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee by mine owne rule No Bristowe not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe without the extraordinarie grace of God shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth which they seeke not in them but the confirmation of their preiudicated erronious and hereticall opinions There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding and in the ende concludeth Non enim sensi 〈…〉 c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense without the scriptures that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts to be proued against vs wheÌ„ we see the booke wee will shewe you our iudgement In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour then you in vaunting of it before it come forth I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome nor honestic The 3. part What he meaneth by his onely scripture and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture I meane by onely scripture what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as expresse wordes For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe say I may be prooued by scripture either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion which is all one Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade Bristow saith I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession The scripture it self that I except against by calling for Canonicall scripture is the booke of Machabees which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres The 4. part What great promises he maketh to bring most euident scriptures against vs and also by scripture to proue his sense of the scripture Triumphing also before the victorie and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture but reiect the Scriptures where 〈…〉 n a fourefold offer is made vnto him Before he rehearse my words of promise he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shewed me first to admitte no eui 〈…〉 nce that they alledge but scripture onely both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture 〈…〉 at euidence I admit and howe farre hath beene shew 〈…〉 before more at large in my answere to his motiues 〈…〉 d demaunds Secondly he saith I admitte no scripture 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall though I graunt 〈…〉 o haue the confirmation of the same true Church which 〈…〉 oueth me as the holy ghost to receiue the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical This he speaketh for the Machabees 〈…〉 oke which although I denie to bee canonicall yet I 〈…〉 uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch neither yet euer had it againe where he saith 〈…〉 e true Church moueth me as the holy ghost to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonicall hee doth mee 〈…〉 onge for the Church moueth not me as the holy ghost 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of mouing the holye Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moueth mee the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse Thirdly hee saith I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonicall vnlesse it make so expressely so plainely so manifestly so necessarily with them that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded This proposition being in the copulatiue is false for I admit arguments taken either out of the expresse and plaine words of scripture or of collection necessarily concluding Let him make a newe logike if hee will haue me admitte argumentes that doe not conclude necessarily Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter Then folâ—oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme â—hat by the grace of God I am able to proue euery arti 〈…〉 e of faith that wee holde against the papistes by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures Bristowe saith in the next chapter I shall haue ynowe yet if 〈◊〉 will one article shall be this That Antichrist is not one certaine person That I shall easily proue thus One certaine person is not many Antichrists there haâ—â— beene manie therefore Antichriste is not one certaine person The minor is saint Iohn Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers 18. Againe Antichrist is hee whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely 1. Iohan. 2. vers 22. Againe Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe is the spirite of Antichrist but this is not the spirite of one certaine person ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person The whoore of Babylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person therefore Antichrist is no one certaine person An other article that hee requireth me to proue is That the Churches flying
of parents murtherers ince 〈…〉 uous persons remouers of their neighbours markes oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers c. and generally against all transgressours of the Lawe vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned â—n the same wordes ' that it is to the rest Marke also where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse proâ—eth all them that bee vnder the lawe to be subiectâ— vnto this curse howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous but continuing vnder the Lawe they may auoyde eternall death And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle is not meant of Christians I woulde knowe of him whether the Galathians to whome saint Paule writeth were not Christians but yet seduced by false Apostles to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe which as it was impossible so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ vnto the curse of God That true Christians are discharged of this curse it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction and not that the sinnes themselues deserue not euerlasting death though they bâ—â— neuer so small of their owne nature by the sentence of Gods curse which is a iust rewarde for transgression Heb. 2. The two other places that I cite for this purpose The soule that sinneth shall dye Ezech. 18. and the rewarde of sinne is death Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consummate gendreth death as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne not brought into acte to deserue death because shewing that the cause of mens destruction iâ— in themselues from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death Our sauiour Christe saith this is condemnation that light is come into the worlde and men haue loued darknes rather then light Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also of this place to conclude that condemnation perteineth not to men but where the light offered is refused or that if Christ had not come none had ben condemned Iohn 3. and likewise yea much rather wher Christ saith If I had not come and spoken vnto them they shoulde not haue had sinne Iohn 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement before Christ came But let vs examine his reason It is sinne saith he as soone as it is gendred but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred Therefore some sinne there is that gendreth notd eath The minor is false for Sainct Iames saying that sinne consummat gendreth death doth not say that sinne gendreth not death so soone as it is gendred But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the scripture hee addeth also an exception vnto sinne consummat that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death except the matter bee of weight accordingly For els that the lightnesse of the matter as an idle worde bringeth not death hee sufficiently signifieth in saying that in a weightie matter the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not These are his wordes by which you may see that without all shame hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames as hee can finde neuer a worde in hiâ— sounde like such 〈◊〉 saying But this is the manner of heretikes which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture and to inforce the wordes thereof against all equitie to signifie and say whatsoeuer it pleaseth them Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death I will proue out of his owne saying by this argument Whosoeuer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements deserueth eternall death Whosoeuer offendeth in one is guiltie of all therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one deserueth eternall death The maior I truste you will graunt The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe and offende but in one pointe hee is guiltie of all Then seeing euerie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe as Sainct Iohn affirmeth Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes but also small sinnes wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake for bee the sinne neuer so small it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes which reason the Apostle vseth to prooue that hee which offendeth in one is guiltie of all And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe sufficiently proue that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall Whether after sinne remitted payne may remayne That God remitteth the punishment with the fault in respect whereof the punishment is due I proue by Ezek. 18. 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences that truely turneth vnto him bringing forth the fruits of repentance Bristow saith this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment whereby it would ensue that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet Psal 24. 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth and Lorde remember not our olde sinnes which are the prayers of the penitent to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes which once obtained they say The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs as farre as the East is from the West Psalme 102. That may bee saith Bristowe in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment I will proue that to bee false To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West is as farre as may bee but not to bee remoued from temporall punishment is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West But the whole Psalme saith Bristowe is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fauour by absolution but of our finall restitution which shall bee at the later day What can bee saide more absurdly Thankes are there giuen to GOD not onely for spirituall benefites but also for temporall The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them is there set forth which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth and East from West As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church vppon the feaste of Christs ascension to proue that it pertayneth altogether to the later day is as good as it is true â—hat the wordes there spoken are onely of our finall â—estitution at the later day To the example of the publican hee aunswereth â—hat there is no more saide but that hee went home â—ustified
sufficient for thee my strength is perfected in infirmitie c. First he belyeth vs whome hee calleth heretikes to say that to burne is nothing else but to bee troubled with the pricking of the flesh for wee holde there is no praise of virginitie where there is no naturall prouocation vnto luste But to burne wee say is to bee so troubled as men are that are inflamed with lust and haue no lawfull meanes to quench the same Secondly beholde howe shamefully hee slaundereth Saint Paul to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh where he complayneth of the generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite the messenger of Satan to buffet him euen that lawe of his members of which hee complayneth Rom. 7. which brought him captiue vnder the lawe of sinne As for that pricking which Bristowe speaketh of to bee so much in a bodie so exercised with afflictions and trauels with hunger and fastings and in a man of such age as Sainct Paul was at that time when he wrote vnto the Corinthians the second Epistle it is altogether incredible And confessing a generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite vnto all sinne it is not probable that he should in this place complaine of that one kinde onely from which age and weakenesse of bodie woulde priuiledge him if godly exercise did not ridde him What is it then to burne saith Bristowe or to be burned saint Paul himselfe telleth vs it is not to containe If they doe not conteine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne for marriage is honorable and vndefiled but fornicatours and adulterers God will iudge The conference whereof is this Let married folke vse their owne bedde c. and let the vnmarried folke enter into marriage rather then not to containe to burne to commit fornication So that to burne not to containe and to commit fornication by Bristowes conference is all one So that hee which committeth not fornication although hee bee continually inflamed with filthie luste yet by Bristowes iudgement hee burneth not he is continent hee is a virgine Againe if not to containe and to burne be nothing else but to commit fornication it woulde followe in saint Paules wordes that men are not commaunded to marrie before they haue made triall of their incontinence by committing fornication which seeing it is horrible absurditie it followeth that the Apostle to preuent fornication exhorting men to marrie which containe not seeing it is better to marrie then to burne vnderstandeth incontinence and burning for an inflaÌ„mation of lust without fornication or actuall filthinesse committed But whatsoeuer saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that doe not containe hee meaneth it of such as haue made no vowe to liue vnmarried For of those that haue vowed his sentence is saith Bristowe that they incurre damnation if they marrie because they haue broken their first faith 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine hee vnderstandeth for their last vowe of widowhood notwithstaÌ„ding that I shewed both by conference in the same chapter by the title of first and by the name of faith that it cannot properly bee so taken but for the faith of Christianitie euen as he saith if any prouide not for his family he hath denied the faith Where I finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture is neuer vsed for a vowe or promise made to God Bristowe aunswereth why doe not you say your selfe that both there once afore in the same chapt it is vsed for the vow or promise made in baptisme no sir. I neuer said it I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptisme and Christianitie except you wil say that the faith of Christianitie embraced by baptisme is nothing else but a vowe or promise made to God Againe can you remember neuer a place saith he where the faith of god is the promise of God looke Rom. 3. yea sir I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the trueth of Gods promise but I finde not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the vowe or promise made to God which because you your selfe so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures coulde not finde you curâ—olled my saying repeating my wordes for a vowe or promise and leauing out that I added made to God The Latine phrase of the faith or promise of marriage vsed by Saint Augustine and other Latine writers aunswereth not to my demaunde of the vse of the greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scriptures which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission it is more like he woulde haue called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their former faith and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first faith Againe the conference whiche Bristowe vrgeth of them that are alreadie turned back after Satan most aptely agreeth to theÌ„ that had forsaken not onely their widowhood but also their Christianitie Loe saith Bristowe your selfe are compelled to graunt that which you denyed to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying ergo Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying so inuincible is the texte in our exposition Fulke it goeth harde with you And all this because I saide such wanton young huswiues proceede so farre that at length they forsake widowhood Christianitie and al. Saide I onely because they forsake widowhoode No but because they waxe wanton against Christ because they haue forsaken the first faith which is Christianity and not only because they haue married and giuen ouer theyr widowhoode whereof whether there were a vowe or no it is not proued Although it be probable there was a promise made vnto the Church because such poore widowes susteined of the Churches almes were imployed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sicke and impotent that men should be collectors and distributers of the almes but womeÌ„ also were necessary for diuers seruices about them which were not conuenient for men to exercise But if I should graunt vnto you that the first faith here signifieth the last vowe of widowhoode yet it foloweth not of this place that all that haue married after rashe vowes made to the contrary are damned For Saint Paule speaketh not of them that were constreined by the necessity of incontinencie which it is not euery mans gift to auoyde to flye to the generall remedy appoynted by God for auoyding of fornication that euery man should haue his wife and euery woman should haue her husband without any exception but only of them he speaketh that waxed wanton against Christ which being liuing to the worlde were dead to God What is this against them which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vowe to performe that which they were not able namely continence or chastity without mariage the
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
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
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
my parish Church hee declareth that hee doth wilfully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clothes as though I denyed any thing that is comelye when I speake against superstition and couetuousnesse The seconde parte concerning the errors that hee layed cap. 4. to the fathers and not to vs. 1. Touching the heresies that were in their times He demaundeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies that were in the Apostles times and the same Church in three Arrian Emperors times with the heresie of Arrius I answere that I neuer charged either the Apostles or the faithfull members of the Church or the true Church it selfe with any heresies that were in their times But aunswering the demaunde Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath alwayes stoode still and stedfast while all congregations of heretikes haue decayed I say The true Church of Christ hath alwayes stoode stedfast and inseparable from Christe her heade when all heretikes haue beene and shall bee consounded although shee haue not alwayes florished in worldly peace For vntill the time of Constantine the great the Church had small reste And soone after vnder the Emperours Constantius Constano and Valens it was greatly infected with the heresie of Arrius Where Bristowe falsifieth my wordes reporting that I saye The true Church was infected c. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that professe Christianitie as when I saye the Church was persecuted by the heathen Emperours I meane all that woulde professe Christianitie among whiche were manye heretikes that suffered persecution also Lykewise when I say the Church was infected I meane the visible Church in whiche are alwayes manye hypocrites according to the parable of the nette and of the tares c. yea I doubt not but many of GODS electe were infected with that heresie in those times which afterwarde repented and returned to the knowledge of the trueth wherfore my meaning was nothing lesse then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxie and true profession with the heresie of Arrius or any other which it did openly detest and abhorre An other quarel he hath against me where I saide Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times In which place after I had shewed what corruption of doctrine had beene receiued of that greatest lights and pillers of the Church from which it was not like that most of the inferior members could bee free I conclude according to the demand which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelyhood wheÌ„ the true church did decaie that it decayed immediately after the Apostles times meaning as the demaunde serueth also to vnderstande the word of decaying when it began to decay not as Bristow cauilleth wheÌ„ it was vtterly decaied came to nothing for such decaying I vtterly deny that euer it was or euer shal be If we see some principall postes of an house begin to putrifie may wee not say this building doth decaye Or being asked when it decayed after it is come to a more ruinous state and yet standeth may wee not aunswere it decayed first when such a beame or post began to put rifie I doubt not but euery man of reasonable vnderstanding wil acknowledge how folish these cauils are which are taken of ambiguitie of words and misconstruing of phrases cleane contrarie to my meaning expressed in plaine euident tearmes and hundreth times at least in these my bookes namely that the Church although it be persecuted by tyrants assaulted by heretikes vndermined by hypocrites enuyed and maligned by the diuell himselfe yet the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it to roote it out of the worlde or to hinder the saluation of any one true member thereof Touching the errors of S. Cyprian S. Irenee S. Iustinus If these doctors haue erred saith Bristow in any thing yet this thing is notable that not so much as in any one of their errors they are of your side A notable matter in deede that we hold not so much as any one error which they did hold But you wil not say the contrary for shame but that we hold many truthes which they helde We resist you say their ful whole consent That is vtterly false you haue not their ful whole consent for any point of popery prayer for the deade is the oldest error you haue except the superstition of Angels and the pharisaicall doctrine of iustification Shew me the ful whole consent of al the fathers for it whose writings are extant shewe me Iustinus Irenaeus Origenes Cyprianus Clemens Alexandrinus or any within 200. yeares after Christ except Tertullian a Montanist that in his writings maintaineth prayer for the deade But you will tell vs whereto you papists ascribe infallible truth First to the canonical scriptures tradition of the Apostles to the decrees of Peter his chayre to the whole church to the conseÌ„t of fathers councels both generall and prouincial confirmed by Peters successor We know this wel inough but I doe rehearse it in your owne termes that it may appeare you are not ashamed to match diuerse autorities equal in truth infallible with the holy scriptures inspired of God that alone are able to instruct a man to saluation and prepare him to euerie good worke For these autorities you vrge not onely where they agree with the scriptures but also wher you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be vnperfect as that they haue omitted any thing needeful to saluation or the aduancement of Gods glorie in true religion The errors of the fathers we doe not reueale to their dishonour but to the honour of God Let God onely be true euery man a lyer yea Peter Peters successor a thousand times Whereas you take vpon you to mitigate the errors of the fathers named in the title you labour in 〈…〉 e we know they erred not of malice but being de 〈…〉 ued with similitude of trueth But where you say it 〈…〉 s no great matter for Irenaeus Papius and other to 〈…〉 ue erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts vntill the Church had condemned peraduenture that opinion in the heretiks called Mellenaries you shewe what certeintie of trueth you haue out of the scriptures yet you make it but a peraduenture that the Church hath condemned that error Last of all where you say in excuse of the error of Iustinus concerning angels that expresse mention is made Gen. 6. of the sinne of the Angels calling the translation of the septuaginta authenticall which translateth the Angels of God insteede of the sonnes of God you geue great cause of suspicion that you are not cleare of that error your selfe 3 Touching second mariages and S. Hierom. Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the 〈…〉 me of Iustinus was in some error about second marriâ—ges and diuorcement Bristowe is angrie that I
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
ohn 14. ver 16. of the comforter euen the spirit of truth to remaine with vs for euer and to leade vs into al truth If the later bee not restored to the Apostles howe can Bristowe proue that it must needes bee vnderstoode of 〈…〉 e whole Church onely and not of euery member s 〈…〉 g our sauiour Christ Iohn 17. prayeth not onely for 〈…〉 is Apostles but for all and euery one that should be 〈…〉 eeue in him through their preaching that they might 〈…〉 e sanctified in the trueth which is the worde of God â—nd eueÌ„ in the verie place cited Iohn 14. ver 15. promiseth 〈…〉 he comforter the spirite of trueth to euerye one 〈…〉 hat beleeueth in him And as he sent his spirite to leade 〈…〉 he Apostles into all trueth so his Apostles fayled not to deliuer that trueth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subiect to forgetful 〈…〉 and corruption then the other Wherefore the Church 〈◊〉 called the piller of trueth 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil 〈…〉 vpon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles Ep 〈…〉 2. which had the whole trueth of the gospel reuealed 〈◊〉 to them not because the Church shoulde haue the spirite of trueth to reueale any trueth vnto her which w 〈…〉 not reuealed to the Apostles and by them as well iâ— their writings as in their preachings So that the sa 〈…〉 gift of the spirite being in the whole Church that is iâ— euerie member and distinct from the gift of the spirite in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing the argument by me set downe is sound no sophisme at all 2 That the Church may be diuorced I neuer saide that the true Catholike church of Christ may be diuorced from him but the visible particular Church of some place time as the prophet Esay complaineth that the church of Ierusalem by idolatrie superstition had separated her selfe from Christ was refused of him Esa. 1. How is the faithfull citie become an haâ—lot c. And so may the prophet say to the church of Rome Brist asketh whether the prophet do say so to Rome yea â—erely For the idolatrie of Rome is nothing lesse in this time then it was in his time of IerusaleÌ„ But I am too too ignorant Bristow saith in the scriptures if I know not herein the difference betweene the synagogue of the Iewes and the Church of Christ to wit that the synagogue with her IerusaleÌ„ might shuld be diuorced but the Church of Christ with her Ierusalem which is Rome saith Bristow if you haue any sight in the Actes of the Apostles should neuer nor neuer might be diuorced c. If mine ignorance be so great why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me that the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation consisting of the Gentiles may not as wel be separated from him as the Church of Christ before his incarnation consisting of the Iewes As for 〈◊〉 diuorcement you imagine of all the whole on the 〈…〉 th it neuer was ne shal be Againe that Rome is the 〈…〉 usalem of the Church of Christ where finde you in 〈…〉 c Acts of the Apostles which haue so good sight in 〈…〉 em I gesse this is your argument S. Luke beginneth 〈…〉 s storâ—e at Ierusalem and endeth at Rome ergo Rome the Ierusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you 〈…〉 n proue the consequens of this argument I wil say as 〈…〉 ou say In the meane time I say there is small likely 〈…〉 od that Rome should be the Ierusalem of the Church 〈…〉 f Christ seeing Peter being at Rome is not once meÌ„ti 〈…〉 ed in all the Actes of the Apostles nor in any other 〈…〉 ooke of holy scripture But if you had as great sight 〈◊〉 the Epistle to the Galathians as you imagine your 〈…〉 lfe to haue in the Actes of the Apostles there might 〈…〉 ou learne Cap. 4. that the Ierusalem of the Church of â—hrist is not Rome on earth but Ierusalem which is a 〈…〉 oâ—e which is the mother of vs all As for the reiecting 〈…〉 f the Iewes and calling of the Gentiles euen vntill the 〈…〉 lnesse and the restoring of the Iewes of which you pro 〈…〉 hecy without the booke that they shal be al Christened in 〈…〉 e end of the world are matters impertineÌ„t to this que 〈…〉 tion of the visible Churches diuorcement 3 That euen the Church of Christ shoulde prepare the way 〈…〉 o Antichrist This saith Bristow is a straunge imagination of him and his fellowes It is the totall summe of all their new diuinitie yet no warrant at all they haue for it out of the scripture But I pray you Bristowe who euer saide that the Church of Christe prepared the way to Antichrist I said Ar. 35. Manie abuses entred into the Church of Christ immediately after the Apostles time which the diuel planted as a preparatiue for antichrist Do I not here plainely say the diuell planted them as a preparatiue Againe Ar. 38. I saide The scripture telleth vs that the mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and reuelation of Antichrist wrought euen in S. Paules tim 〈…〉 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth that general is my worâ— and not saint Paules I confesse but it is S. Paules m 〈…〉 ning which speaketh not of a small or particular but 〈◊〉 that great and generall defection which in other pa 〈…〉 of scripture is foreshewed to bee from Christ vnto Antichrist Apoc. 13. 17. and yet not so generall but th 〈…〉 Christ shall haue his Church still vpon earth Secondlâ— he demaundeth whether the scripture tell me that it wrâ—ugâ— in the Church of Christ and aunswereth himselfe no wordâ— so 〈◊〉 wrought in the persecuters c. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so Is open persecution a mysteâ—iâ— of iniquitie You say better in the seducers and where began the seducers but in the visible Church although they be no members of the true and Catholike Churchâ— That our heresie is the last or next the last before the reuelation before you goe about to shewe as you promise you must proue it to bee an heresie otherwise then the religion of Christ was or the Infidels Iewes Gentileâ— called an heresie That the Church of Christ is alwayes a conâ—empâ—ible companie I neuer saide so but after diuerse authorities and reâ—sons brought to shewe howe the worlde accounteth of the Church I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in thâ— sight of God and his sancts is most glorious and honorable so in the sight of the worlde it hath alwayes beene most base and contemptible To the scriptures I alledge 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the crosse and Christ crucified thereon which are all the glorie of the Church are condemned of the worlde
in Christ the workes of one may helpe another I saide Purg. 198. I haue learned in the scripture that there is no name giuen vnder heauen by whiche they may be helped which are not helped by Christes death Act. 4. Bristowe asketh whether I haue learned that they which are helped by the death of Christe can not through his grace helpe and be holpen one of an other To whom I aunswere as I saide before to Allen I learne in scripture that the bloud of Christe purgeth vs from all sinne Iohn 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sinnes by the bloud of Christe as the Papistes affirme them to be which haue neede of other purgation I haue not learned that they can haue any helpe elsewhere Or if you say the bloud of Christ hâ—th purged them from all sinne why doe you invent another purgatory to purge them which is not the bloud of Christ for fierie torments according to Gods iustice are not the bloud of Christ shed for our redemption by which men are iustified freely Rom. 3. through which we haue remission of our sinnes through the riches of his grace Eph. 1. Another reason of mine is grounded vpon Allens wordes which saith that they which are in purgatory caÌ„ not by any motion of minde attaine more mercie then their life past deserued Whereof I inferre that their faith being a notable motion of the minde cannot profite them except the merites of other men should profite them without faith the Scripture saying that without faith it is not possible to please God Bristowe icsting at these iron conclusions letteth the argument stand and denyeth the latter conclusion affirming that by their faith they are in case to be profited by other mens workes which if it be true then is Allens conclusion false that they can not profite them selues by any motion of minde whereon it will followe that they cannot profite them selues by beleeuing that other mens workes may helpe them beeing destitute of their owne They cannot atteine mercie by any motion of minde Ergo not by faith Fulkes common argument of the Omnisufficiencie of Christes passion As though I defended the onely omnipotencie of Christes passion able to purge al sinnes and not the omnisufficiencie hauing satisfied for our sinns first he replyeth that an Origenist might likewise say The omnisufficiencie of Christes passion cannot stande with hell No sir for against him is not onely the wil of Christ but his Act also past hauing sufficiently onely for his elect which satisfaction he communicateth vnto them not in respecte of their workes but according to his grace whiche can abide no workes to ioyne with it in merite but onely faith in receiuing confirmed by the sacramentes in the persons of all them that heare his word and in them that cannot heare only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it so that no degrees proportions meanes or instruments wherof Bristow babbleth can make any merite to detract from Christs death the most plentiful free grace of satisfactioÌ„ for all our sins coÌ„mitted either before baptisme or after For this purpose I cited 1. Iohn 2. Pur. 42. to proue that if any man sinne after baptisme Iesus Christ is our Advocate with the father and the propitiation for our sinnes Bristow answereth That is true But that in playing the Advocate for our sinnes after baptisme he requestâ—th the like equal grace as he did in baptisme for sinnes afore baptisme where haue you that If you make Christes advocation a playing matter I will take no charge of you But to let passe your vnreuerent phrase what doe you ascribe vnto him in his office of advocate but onely to be a requester as euery common Saint is counted with you But you must vnderstande that the office of an Advocate or patrone is to pleade for his clientes and not to require only and what hath he to pleade for vs against the debte of our sins either before or after baptism but his owne satisfaction in his death suffering And therefore euen that which you aske where I haue iâ— I haue euen in the very same words that he requesteth as an advocate for our sins after baptisme the like and equall grace as he did in Baptisme for sinns afore baptisme For there I finde him a propitiation for our sinnes committed after baptisme which word I maruel your blind heresie could not see whereof I reason thus The same propitiation as course of grace working after baptisme that was in or before baptisme must haue equall effectes of grace But Christ is the same propitiation after Baptisme that he was in it or before Ergo he must haue the same effectes of grace working the satisfaction of our sinnes euen at the full Where I alledge Purg. 9â— that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all our sins 1. Ioh. 1. Bristowe answereth It is taken out of the same place and haâ—h the same answere to wit that his bloud doth worke more graciously in the sacrament of baptisme then in the sacrament of penance Of peâ—ance being a sacrament I wil not here dispute but folâ—owe the principall matter in controuersie whether all â—innes of the repentant after baptisme be as clearly purged as they were in baptisme by the bloud of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argumeÌ„t doth â—ufficiently proue it yet euen this very place is manifestâ—y to be vnderstood of the bloud of Christ purging all our sinnes committed after baptisme as well as before The bloud of Christ saith S. Iohn purgeth vs that is me you baptized Christians I doubt not of al sinne which if we say we haue not we deceiue our selues and the trueth is not in vs. The worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth make pure and cleane and so is the vulgar latine emundat Againe he saith in the same place if we confesse our sins â—e is faithful and iust that he may forgiue vs our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquitie If the bloud of Christ in which we haue forgiuenesse doeth purge vs from all our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquiâ—ie whensoeuer we acknowledge them with hartie repentance what place is left for any other purging or clensing of that which the bloud of Christ and the mercie of God hath made pure and cleane That I cite out of S. Iohn being washed by Christ we are throughly cleane Iohn 13. out of Esay Although our sinnes were as red as scarlet they are made as white as snowe He answereth these places are euident of baptisme And therefore he admitteth that I sayd of them so clensed that they are made capable immediatly of the heauenly inheritance But why I pray you are they euident of baptisme because there is mention of washing in both places Is there no washing but in baptisme At least wise will you saye that the Prophet Esay preaching to the people of his age when hee
qui matrimonis contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt They saie that Elders or Priests which haue ioyned them selues in matrimony ought to be despised Therefore these catholique Bishops thought those Priests good ones which did ioyne them selues in matrimony so they made their Canon Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum c. If any man make difference of a married Priest as though by occasion of his marriage he ought not to offer and doth therfore absteine from his oblation let him be accursed Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane councell decreeth Cap. 10. Diaconi quicunque c. Whosoeuer be ordeyned Deacons if at the same time when they were ordeined they protested saying that they would be ioyned in marriage because they could not so continue if afterwarde they haue married wiues let them remaine in the ministerie because the Bishop hath giuen them licence But so many as haue helde their peace and taken imposition of handes professing continencie and afterwarde be ioyned in marriage ought to ceasse from the ministerie Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo lib 4. allowing the tradition of the orientall Churches for marriage of theyr Church ministers Aliter se Orientalium c. The tradition of the Easterne Churches hath it otherwise and otherwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome For the Priests Deacons and Subdeacons of their Churches are coupled in marriage but none of the Priestes of this Church from the Subdeacon vnto the Bishoppe hath licence to enter into mariage It were hard if there were neuer a good one among all the Cleargie of the East Churches since the Apostles time which haue ben married and yet are To conclude I trust it is apparant to the indifferent reader that such texts of Scripture as I alledged in those two bookes which Bristow vndertaketh in this confuse manner to confute were rightly applyed and without all violence or wresting doe proue sufficiently that for which they were called to witnesse And as for the popish conference of Scriptures wherof Bristowe once againe with great lothsomnesse doeth bragge how sound it is you may perceiue by this example taste giuen by him in this Chapter Wherefore I maruell much what learned ministers of our church these were whom Bristow affirmeth being in number more then a dozen and diuerse of no vulgar wittes by their onely hearing of your conference of scriptures to haue become papists By like some vagabonde irregular and vnhonest persons being depriued of their ministerie for their vngodly behauiour haue sought fauour among them by reuolting or at least counterfaiting to be reuolted to papistrie when they be of no religion commended by Bristow for their wittes but neither for their honestie nor learning CAP. IX To defende that the doctors as they be confessed to be ours in very many pointes so they be ours in all pointes and the Protestants in no point All the doctors sayings that he alledgeth are examined and answered The first part of his doctors generally his challenging words I confesse not the doctors to be yours in very manye points nor simply in fewe pointes nor all in any point of controuersie but graunting that for a fewe errours which you haue common with them in which you also farre exceede them as in prayers for the dead prayers to saintes some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies I affirme that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controuersie they are either all with vs or not one against vs. 2 A generall answere to his challenge declaring that 〈◊〉 neede not to answere his doctors particularly His first reason is because I sayde wee stande for authoritie onely to the iudgement of the holy scriptures which scriptures in the chapter going before he hath satisfied But how he hath satisfied them let the indifferent readers iudge And seeing the Papistes offer to stād to their iudgement in all things and wee refuse them not as witnesses vnto the truth in most things he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors His second reason is for that I do answere all mine own doctors for him if it be wel considered what is your consideration In that I confesse them to haue helde with you the very same points for which wee must bee condemned no remedie as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes What are those I pray you Bristowe answereth For why doeth he saye that we are against the honor of God against the offices of Christ but because wee holde inuocation of saints and worshipping of their reliques yes sir for other more grosse idolatrie and defacing of the kingdome priesthod and propheticall office of Christe and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossely then any of the doctors did Againe why doth he say that we are against the authoritie of Gods worde but because we hold with traditions as the doctors did I aunswere the doctors held with no traditions that were proued to be against the written worde of God they made not the decrees of Councels and Popes of equall autoritie with the worde of God as you do But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my wordes in which I say expressely I confesse with M. Allen that the old writers not only knewe but also haue expressed the value of our redemption by Christ in such wordes as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stande with them And yet on the other side saith Bristowe see what followeth immediatly Against the value of which redemption if they haue vttered any thing by the worde of satisfaction or any thing else we may lawfully reiect their authoritie not onely though they be doctors of the church but also if they were angels from heauen But what I pray you concludeth Bristowe of these two sayings His wordes followe immediatly So that nowe we no more neede to defende against him that wee are not contrarie to the doctors then that the doctors are not contrary to them selues As though it were impossible for men to be contrarie to themselues And yet I say no more of them then of the angels that they are contrary to the trueth in this point but that if they were wee might reiect them as lawfully as the angels if they brought another gospell Last of all he sayth Wee neede not defend that we are contrarie to our selues in the same For in what wordes the doctors speake thereof the same do wee Neither is the antecedent true nor if it were doth the argument followe For you will not saye as the olde writers doe that through the redemption of Christ a man is iustified before God by faith onely without respect of his workes or merites And where you vse the doctors wordes you either vse them in a contrary sense or else elude them with additions distinctions neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the olde doctors but inuented out of your owne
found in them 1. Tim. 3. Now commeth Bristowe to answere such things as I obiect out of Augustine against vnwritten traditions which he digesteth into three sorts The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the autority of the canonicall Scripture before all writinges of Catholike Doctours of Bishops of Councels before all customes and traditions But this Bristow denieth to be the question but whether nothing but Scripture be of authoritie I aunswere those places proue that nothing is of infallible veritie but the scriptures therfore they proue that they only are of irrefragable authoritie The second sorte of places are about this question who hath the true Church Of which question I affirme that S. Augustine would haue the Church sought only in the Scriptures And heâ—e he biddeth me reade his first demande likewise I wil send him to mine answer vnto the same At length he confesseth that Augustine is content in that question to set aside all other authorities to trie it by the Scriptures But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question that he neuer sayeth Neither doe we say it or refuse any authoritie that is agreeable to the Scriptures And as that one question which was betweene S. Augustine and the Donatistes was determinable by the onely authorititie of Scriptures so are all questions that are betweene the Church of all times and all heretikes The Donatistes helde that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world except Affrica as the Papistes holde that it is perished out of all partes except a peece of Europa Saint Augustine by the Scripture proueth the continuance in the Churche dispersed ouer all the worlde and that we holde against the Romishe synagogue of Popish Donatistes who haue separated them selues from the Catholike Church into the function of an Italian Priest as the other did of an Affrican But Bristowe sayeth I am as blinde as a beetle in saying that the Papistes did separate themselues from our Church seeing it is certain that Luther did separate him selfe from the Popish Church The like might be said to all them that forsoke the fellowship of any heretikes to come vnto the Churche of God But Bristow is as madde as a marche Hare that bragging so much of the title of the church he is driuen to trie it only by the Scriptures as Augustine calleth vpon the Donatists The other places which I aledge out of Aug saith Bristowe are about al questions with heretikes whatsoeuer As that he would oppresse the Arrian Maximinus with the authoritie of the Nicene councel Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristowe asketh whether he might not presse them with the authoritie thereof as he doth the Donatistes But aske Augustine him selfe who saith he ought not in that case that he charged the Donatistes which it was by their own concession because they allowed it But he saith in the same place the Fathers of the Nicene councell ratified Homousion that is equalitie of the sonne with the father Veritatis autoritate autoritatis veritate by authoritie of trueth and by trueth of authoritie This truth of authoritie Bristowe will haue to be the authoritie of the Nicene councell as though the councel could not erre but then what needed the authoritie of trueth In deede where the councel decreeth with the trueth it is the trueth of authoritie for other authoritie a Councell hath not but of trueth to declare trueth and not to make trueth for if it declare errour as the councell of Arimine did it hath no trueth of authoritie because it hath no authoritie of trueth Moreouer Bristow saith I translate falsely these wordes Nec ego huius autoritate nec tuillius detineris Neither am I bounden to the authoritie of the one nor thou of the other Whereas it should be Neither doth the authoritie of the one hold me nor of the other holde thee There is greate difference betweene beeing holden and beeing bound To the bare authoritie of the councell of Nice Maximinus was no more bounden then Augustine to the bare authoritie of Ariminum It was the trueth of Nice that the Arrian was bounde vnto and the falshod of Ariminum that Augustine was not holden with vs. But after the example of Augustine saith Bristowe we will not alledge the councell of Trent as our proper witnesses to our side but the authoritie of Scriptures common to both Witnesse hereof Bristowes motiues where he would ouerthrowe vs by the bare name of Catholike and heretike c. Againe he saith that we make challenge of 600. yeares also And what then Witnesses of trueth we take wheresoeuer they be but authoritie of trueth onely out of the Scriptures Where I said that Augustine setting all other persuasions aside prouoketh onely to the Scriptures to trie the faith and doctrine of the Churche Bristowe answereth Howe true that is appeareth in the same booke De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite For when he hath proued against the Donatistes the Church to be his he saith expressely that to be inough also for all other questions Sufficit nobis It is inough for vs that we haue that Church which is pointed too by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonicall Scriptures De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressely it is inough for all other questions I must needes say expressely you lie For the onely question being how the Donatistes should be receiued if they would come to the Catholike Church as though they were the true Church because baptisme giuen among them was not repeated in the Catholike Church Augustine after much concertation saith Quapropter cum dicatur haereticis c. Wherfore seeing it is said to the heretiks Rightousnes is wanting to you which without charitie and the bonde of peace no man can haue seeing they theÌ„selues confesse that many haue baptisme which haue not righteousnesse and if they would not confesse it the holy Scripture conuinceth them I maruell howe they thinke when we wil not baptise them again hauing not their own but the baptisme of Christ that we do so as though we iudged nothing to be now wanting to theÌ„ that because baptisme is not giuen to them in the Catholike Church which they are founde to haue already they thinke they receiue nothing there where they receiue that without which that which they haue auaileth them to their destruction and not to their saluation Which if they wil not vnderstand it is sufficient for vs that we holde that Church which is shewed forth by most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures Where he speaketh not of the authortie of the Church to determine questions but sheweth it is sufficieÌ„t to haue proued by the Scriptures that they are the true Church although the Heretikes will not vnderstand how baptisme being ministred out of the Church hath not effect but in the true Church for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church that last question
of theirs how they should be receiued though it be not resolued yet can not disprooue them to be the true Church nor proue the Donatists to be the Church seeing there can be but one Where out of this Booke Cap. 16. I shewe that Augustine declareth first that Heretikes must be confuted only by Scriptures secondly that neither councells succession of Bishoppes vniuersality miracles visions dreames nor reuelations are the notes to trie the Catholike Church but only the Scriptures Bristowe saith they are notes with the Scripture as he hath shewed in his demaund I answere whatsoeuer agreeth with the Scripture may well be receiued But the Scripture without all these is sufficient to trie the Church as Augustine sheweth therefore all the rest of Bristowes motiues might be spared if he durst ioyne issue vpon the Scripture only as Augustine doth but that he dare not do He hath a great quarrell of Augustine for translating manifestatur is proued as though Augustine saide that true miracles and visions lacke waight and fashion of iust probation If you call true miracles that are done indeede and not counterfeited I say that all such make no iust probation For God tempteth his Church by such to see if they will forsake his commandement Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeede are ioyned with the truth of doctrine which being tryed by the worde of God to be such confirme it or prepare mens mindes vnto it of themselues neuer sufficient to auouch true doctrine without Gods worde and therefore I will stil tâ—â—nslate manifestatur is manifestly prooued or shewed which is alone Moreouer out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam Cap. 4. I shewed that though consent and vniuersality antiquity succession be good confirmation when they are ioyned with truth yet when trueth is seuered from them it is more to be regarded then they all Bristowe saith that Augustine graunteth not that the truth can be separated from them Yes verily or else he should haue stood vpon that poynt only that truth can not be seuered from those markes which vndoubtedly the Catholique Church had and the Manichees wanted And although he saide the Church had most syncere wisdom yet he saith not that wheresoeuer was antiquity succession c. there must needs be the most syncere wisdome Lastly out of the booke De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affirmed that mans auctority is too weake to carry away so waighty a matter as was in question vsing the wordes of Augustine Auferantur chartae humanae c. Let mens papers be remoued let the voices of God be heard shewe me one place of Scripture for Donatus side c. Bristowe rehearsing the saying more at large as I did Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke vnlesse hee thinketh he hath any vantage in his owne false translation of Acta turning it decrees Surely whether the worde be well or ill translated I seeke no vantage therof and yet if I should change my translations I would rather call Acta actes of the Court or recordes then Courtrolles as you doe But euery man may see what vantage you clasp at among ignorant persons by your false translation of Chartae humanae mens Court papers as though the worde of Augustine were not generall to remoue all mens writings and to vrge only the Scripture But the Church beginning at Hierusalem spreading ouer all Nations to the very last time which Augustine in all places proueth against the Donatists maketh much against vs in Bristowes opinion Nay rather against the Papists which restraine the Church into the Romishe rable which we affirme both is and was alwaies scattered ouer al the world although greater in number at some times then at other some seeing that Mahomet hath infected a greate part of the worlde and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ hath his members that neuer bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha or to the Pope of Rome 3 About certaine traditions The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I saide those oblations with other superstitions fathered vpon tradition of the Apostles by the Nicen other councels as Rhenanus witnesseth are abrogated Bristowe answereth that he speaketh neuer a worde of any other traditions Yet Bristowe confesseth him selfe that many of them are abrogated Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. 5. 4 About the marriage of Votaries The two places one of Epiphanius the other of Hieronyme whiche I cited for the Marriage of Votaries Bristo we sayeth are about a matter which they holde euen as those fathers did But in deede they holde the contrary for they helde the marriage of such lawfull the Papistes dissolue them and say they are no marriages It is better saith Epiphanius to haue one sinne and not many It is better for him that is fallen from his course opeÌ„nly to take a wife according to the lawe and of long time to repent from his virginitie and so to be brought againe to the Church as one that hath done amisse as one that is fallen and broken hauing neede to be bounde rather then to be wounded daily with priuie dartes of that wickednesse which the deuil putteth into him So knoweth the Church to preache these are the medicines of healing Bristowe saith I gather that marriage is an wholsome medicine for such men Contrarie to that I confesse my selfe that he calleth it a sinne But he slaundereth me as he doeth often I saide Epiphanius doth count it an offence to marry because it was a breache of vowe but neither he nor I saide that marâ—iâ—ge is a sinne Bristowe saith likewise the Apostles tradition calleth it a sinne But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof euen as he did me The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt c. The holy Apostles of God haue deliuered that it is a sin after virginity decreed to be turned to marriage They say not marriage is a sinne but by breache of vowe to marrie is a sinne For their sinn cannot pollute the ordinance of God But the wholsome medicines are penance reconciliation saith Bristowe And why not marriage I pray you whatsoeuer is good for the diseased is an wholsom medicine to take a wife openly is good for the diseased therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine As for your distinction of solemne vowe and sole vow is a very bable Epiphanius speaketh generally of al that had vowed virginity To the place of Hierome Ad Demetriadem he answereth that they which of two sinnes will needes committ one they counsell them to committ the lesse rather then the greater But Hierom maketh no comparison of sinnes but saith to such virgins as liued incontinently It must be plainly saide to them that either they should marry if they cannot containe or else they should containe if they will not marry 5. About the reall presence and transubstantiation About these pointes I will not stande considering
the Church in the wildernes as though we were forbidden to seeâ—e her or else to acknowledge her to be where somtime she shold be In the 4 demand of rising after he would maintaine 2 arguments the first is this Our first auctors can not be named Ergo they were none but the Apostles This argument hath no consequens and yet the antecedent iâ— false For of many of your errors we name the auctors and of praier for the dead Montanus the heretike vntill you can name vs a Catholique that helde it which was more auncient then he and although you would cleare your selues of theft because you haue not stollen that article but receiued it yet seeing it came first from a theefe your possession can not be iust and therefore ye must restore it to the heathen from whence Montanus stoale it Where I brought example of the heretikes called Acephali and diuerse other Pur. 388. to proue that the first auctor of euery heresie can not be named Bristow saith that he findeth his name to haue ben Seuerus that they were but a peece of Eutyches as the Puritanes are of Caluin But when writers dout the common voice gaue them their name because their bead was not knowen the coniâ—cture of a name will not serue the turne If they had added nothing to Eutyches they should haue bene called Eutychians as for the cauill of Caluine and the Puritanes deserueth none aunswere More like are the friers obseruants and general Franciscanes to those headlesse heretikes the Eutychians But Bristowe being driuen from the auctor falleth to the beginning of an heresie which being shewed to haue bene later then Christ and his Apostles is indeede an vndoubted argument to reproue an heresie And the begining saith he is shewed by this that the primitiue name of ChristiaÌ„s would not serue them but they must haue new names to be called by By this demonstratine Logike none shill so â—ptly be proued heretikes as Monkes Friers Nunnes c who disdaining the primitiue name of Christians haue chosen to themselues newe names as Benedictines Franciscanes Iesuites c. Whereas the olde heretikes did not willingly chuse the names that they were called by but by like names reproched the true Catholikes which argueth that the new name except it be chosen by them â—elues is no good argument to conuince heretikes Bris. asketh if the Papists do acknowlege any founders of their faith but the Apostles of Christ yea verily the Pope the popish councel which haue giuen you new articles of faith that the Apostles neuer taught but yâ— contrary as transubstantiation coÌ„munion vnder one kind c. That Teâ—tul other latter writers do father praier for the dead vpon traditioÌ„ of the Apostles it is no warrant for vs seeing the doctrine therof is not found in all the holy canonicall scriptures but is contrary to the same Montanus is found to be the first that since Christ taught praier for the dead That transubstaÌ„tiation was lately decreed he answereth it was the name not the thing as Homousion was alwaies beleued euen before the Nicen Councell which first receiued that name A fit coÌ„parison but how can Brist say that traÌ„substaÌ„tiation was alwais beleued when the coÌ„mon opinioÌ„ almost of al the scholemen is that before the determination of the Laterane councel it was no heresie to hold impuratioÌ„ or adnihilation of the Elements and he himself confessed in the last Chapter that perfect transubstantiation was not decreed before the last Tridentine session The second argument is this your first auctors can be named after the beginning of the Churches rising with their newe opinions Ergo their opnions were heresies c. To this argument I answer denying the antecedent for we hold no new opinion but the foundation of the Prophetes and Apostles Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone Where I take exceptions to Allens rule Pur. 413 Bristow expoundeth his meaning to be of such an opinion as is contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles and vpon his exposition not necessary vpon Allens wordes chargeth me with nugation or triseling in adding mine exception which is the same with his exposition I pray the reader vouchsafe to peruse the place and see if there be any droppe of shamefast bloud left in this blundering papist which blusheth not to scoffe at me for triselings when he doth nothing but cauil and trifle himself and that without al wit or reason truth or likelihoode In the 5. demand of contradiction of heresies in their first arising where I had shewed how some fewe plausible errors of praier for the dead to the dead Ar. 39 by litle and litle preuailed without any great contradiction mentioned in Histories Bristowe saith It is a fonde parte to tell why and how a thing was done which was neuer done For the Scripture Es. 62. and August Ep. 119. Cap. 19. affirme that there ne should be ne was any such silence in the true pastors c. I answere both the Scripture and the Doctor speake of silence which may bring present ouerthrowe of the Citie or damnation of the Citizens Otherwise the true pastors in Saint Augustines time not only in silence passed but by speache and writing allowed the error of communicating of infants and the necessity thereof as I haue shewed before And seeing prayer for the deade and to the deade by the holy Scriptures are conuinced to be errors it can be no iustifying of them to say no man preached against them at their first rising And seeing the Histories of the auncient time are very fewe and short it is more boldlie affirmed then soundly proued that no man preached against them Epiphanius doth not tell who preached against euery heresie at the first arising thereof And euen some of Origens heresies of which Bristowe taketh example slept almost 200. yeares in his bookes before they were openly contradicted in the daies of Hieronyme Ruffine and Augustine Touching that I alledge of the mystery of iniquity working in the Apostles time 2. Thess. 2. Bristowe chargeth me to say that the Church of Christ wrought this mystery of iniquity wherein he doth me open iniury for I knowe it was Satan which wrought it but yet in the Church where Antichrist should sitte and not without it He asketh whether my text say There was no preaching against it I answere my text saith it was a mystery not reuealed and therefore could not at the first be openly preached against But Antichrist being openly shewed was preached against by the two witnesses Apoc. 11. although he were not espied in the first mystery of iniquity yea when he was yet in fashioning he was preached against by Irenaeus Pollycrates and others Ar. 36. and in this book Cap. 9. The case of Cyprian and the Affricanes being true pastors and yet contradicting the truth and other true pastors denying that such as were baptised by heretikes were to be rebaptised I haue clearely
with his censure was countermanded by many Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did countermaund him or gaue him contrarie commaundement to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie and loue of his neighbour Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things wherein they differed declared that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought but that the Bishop of Rome might erre The other example I brought was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome misliked by Dionysius Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 c. sharply reproued by Cyprian accusing him of presumption and contumacie Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus and almost all the Churches of Asia thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes should be baptized againe Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant nor so presumptuous that he would say he held the primacie and that other men should obey him as his inferiors Bristowe saith none of these denied the primacie of Peter I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie although Cyprian in the same place saith For neither Peter whom our lord chose first which argueth no primacie but of order vpō whom he builded his Church when Paule did afterward dissent from him about circumcision did boast him self or take vpon him any thing insolently or arrogantly that he should say he held the primacie and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie and certaintie of trueth against al men But Bristowe saith when there was no remedie but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them they did like Catholike men for all their Councels conforme their newe practise to the old custome and quoteth August de bapt cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. 25. where there is no such matter also he referreth vs to his fift Demaund where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement being admonished in a vision and that he had learned that not nowe onely but of olde time both in Aphrica and other places the trueth was receiued c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes if they dissented from the bishop of Rome there is no word The place of Hierome ad Euagrium which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church against a custome of the Church of Rome Bristowe saith doth not proue a Church a rule of trueth and Christianitie without the bishop and Church of Rome because Hierome saith as also there I cite Nec altera c. we must not thinke that there is one Church of the citie of Rome and an other of all the world c. By which wordes he sheweth that the Church of Rome if she will be a member of the Catholike Church must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome Where I say we beleeue the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ vnto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth Bristowe obiecteth suppose that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime as farre as the Church reacheth To this impossible supposition I aunswere that one King should haue no more authoritie than euerie King hath nowe But Bristowe obiecteth that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers c. Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike I would pull them downe In the motiue of Apes he discharged me from being a Puritane by his censure but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre that I should also be a traitour as he and all his fellowes are To his wise obiection I aunswere that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers so they are no Ecclesiasticall but ciuill Magistrates and the Church may be without them as it was many hundreth yeares Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians they haue chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had Dauid Solomon Iehosophat Ezechias Iosias c. But Christ professing that all power is giuen him Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie he might commit what authoritie he would and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe teach and baptize◠and to one of them singularly feede my lambes and my sheepe No maruel though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe Christ saide to one feede my lambes and sheepe therefore he saide it singularly and he hath vniuersall charge and all his successors to But for the Popes supremacie the Apostle saith expresly 1. Cor. 12. the heade vnder Christ can not say to the feete you are not necessarie to me But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse vnder Christ when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and the whole church also is like If you seeke the head of euery seuerall congregation you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof but if you seeke the head of the whole Church the scripture teacheth but one which is Christ for one head vnder another in one whole body is monstrous But you thinke perhaps Christ as he is head of his Church may say to the feete he hath no neede of them and therefore it must be vnderstoode of an head vnder Christ but then you must remember that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe yet as he vouchsafeth to take vpon him this office to be head of the Church he is not perfect without al his members which is the singular comfort of Gods children Ephe. 1. ver last But Saint Paule Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith vnder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie This cause is a shameles and senseles lie for no antiquitie for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed the see or the decrees therof Again what reason is it that Peters successors should be included more thē the successors of the other Apostles seeing this souereigntie of Peter is not grounded vpon his Apostleship but vpon his Bishoplike office as Sander maintaineth As for the principalitie of Apostleship principalitie of the Apostles chaire which he quoteth out of August de bapt Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. epi. 162. haue often bene shewed to be vnsufficient to make euery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in
as they write of be orderly successions By the time of these Fathers saith Bristowe there had bene foure schismes Ar. 85. Aunswere In the first proposition I speake of Tertullians time and succession of doctrine and name succession simplie In the second proposition I speake of the whole time vntill our dayes and of succession of persons and of orderly succession therefore no contradiction The fourth It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles it retained by succession that faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Pur. 373. 374. Contra he chargeth it with sundrie errors here cap. 3. 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes and eight Popes for the supremacie I might aunswere that the charging of the Popes chargeth not the Church but in the first proposition I spake of the Church of Rome in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian holding the doctrine of the Apostles contrarie to those heresies against which they write The fift It was a true Church and Apostolike Church a faithfull Church true and Apostolike faith and religion haue dwelled in her Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra The Church of Rome neuer preached the trueth She neuer had since she first arose the ministring of sacraments according to Christes institution The true Catholike Church hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes But the Popish Church was neuer able to encounter with heretikes Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns but neuer did good to Christians I am able to proue that the primitiue Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27. The latter part of this contradiction with as many falsifications as there be quotations doe sufficiently declare that in all those places I speake of the Popishe Church of Rome that nowe is and not of the true Church which of olde time was at Rome Yet to giue the reader a taste of his falsification of my wordes Ar. 106. which hee rehearseth thus Rome may be a nurse c. in truth they are these Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of mans traditions in steade of the milke of Gods worde and will rather see them famish than they should taste of Gods worde may well bee a nurse of Antichristians but neuer did good vnto Christians The sixt The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie whereof the whore beareth a cuppe full out of which all nations haue dronke Ar. 102. 38. Euen from the Apostles â—ime the diuell neuer left to set in his foote for his sonne Antichristes dominion vntill he had placed him in the temple of God and prepared the wide world for his walke and then came the generall defection Pur. 287. Contra all nations neuer consented to the doctrine of the Papistes For it hath bene often saide the Greeke Church and all other Orientall Churches of Assa and Africa neuer receiued the Popish religion in many chiefe points and specially in acknowledging the Popes authoritie they will not vnto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholike nor her authoritie to be lawfull Ar. 38. 16 33. 34. These places being both full of falsifications yet if they had bene in so many wordes set downe by me imploy no contradiction For it may be that all nâ—tions meaning as the scripture whose wordes I cite Apoc. 18. not all of euerie nation but some of all nations haue dronke of the whores cup and yet neuer receiued her religion in al things And the general defection is meant of that great apostasie that S. Paul speaketh of in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ though they fall not all to the Pope For many are fallen to Mahomet many reuolted to idolatrie many to other heresies beside Poperie The 7. The religion of Papistes came in and preuailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his AntichristiaÌ„ exaltatioÌ„ to wit Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the heade of all the Church Ar. 36. Contra in the same place Because you speak of the first entring of Popish religion which dependeth chiefly vpon the Popes authoritie it first beganne to aduaunce it selfe in Victor about the yeare of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here Popish religion in one piece first beganne to aduaunce it selfe Anno 200. and after came in and preuailed Anno 607. The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresie Euen in the Apostles time and from that time in all times when so euer and where so euer was any piece of myste or darke corner there were the steppes of your walke It may be a shame for you Papistes to leaue and condemne for heresie all that is true in the Fathers writings and agreeable to the scriptures Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papistes from the great heresies and open aduersaries that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith as the Valentinians Marcionistes Manichees Arrians Sabellians and such like monsters Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction which is not of the religion of the Papistes but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the auncient Fathers which among the Papistes are growne to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians Marcionistes c. And yet there can be no contradiction where the subiectes of both propositions are not all one But here the one is of the Popish Church which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan the other is of the religion of Papistes The Papistes by communion of the diuels Church communicate with all heresies The 9. We say not that the religion of Papistes came in soudenly but that it entred by small degrees at the first and therefore â—aâ—â—esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies not preached against winked at because it had a shewe of Pietie and Charitie and at length allowed of Augustine and others who followed the common errors of their time Specially when a generall defection and departing from the faith was foreshewed what marueile were it if none colde preach against it as it first entred Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra The Church of Christ in such places as she is suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion without open reprehension Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries as that I should say The religion of papistes was not preached against c. Winked at c. Allowed of Augustine c. For I neuer said so of the whole religion of papists but of some fewe errors budding vp in antient times But both Ar. 36. where I aske What maruaile c. as an obiection I doe neuerthelesse shewe who preached against the vsurpation of the Bishop of Rome which yet tended not to a damnable error Ar. 38. I affirme there was both preaching
teaching and writing against it The 10 The true catholike Church hath alwaies resisted all false opinions contrarie to the word of God as her dewty was and fought against them and obteined the victorie and triumphed ouer them Ar. 11. Contra In those antient times they of the true Church did not alwaies weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God but if heretikes had any thing that seemed to haue a shew of pietie or charitie they would drawe it into vse So they tooke into the Church of Christ many abuses and corruptions vntill at the length An. 607. the religion of the papists preuailed And since that time that diuelish heresie hath alwaies increased in error vntill the yeare 1414. Pur. 419. Ar. 35. 36. The former proposition is directly spoken and meant by me of heresies against the truth and other articles of faith That which is mine in the latter patchery and falsification is spoken of small errors and idle ceremonies The 11 That blasphemous heresie of purgatorie which is most blasphemous against Christ against the blood of Christ against his merites and satisfaction for our sinnes and against Gods vnspeakable mercies and occasion of most licentious wickednes in all them that beleeue it nothing conuenient for the disciples and members of Christ. No suffrages were made for the dead by the Apostles or their lawfull successors To the reader Pur. 26. 166 184. 177. 269. 362. 363. 419. 186. Contrà here cap. 3. he confesseth that the fathers held it and yet notwithstanding that they were members of the true Church cap. 2. and held the foundation of Iesus Christ cap. 5. all the substance of true doctrine And also that they did inuocate Saintes denying in other places that such be true Christians The like of fasting Pur. â—93 405. I neuer confessed those godly fathers to hold purgatorie in such blasphemous sense as the papistes doe nor yet prayer for the dead or inuocation of Saintes By fasting I knowe not what he meaneth for in the page whereto he sendeth me 141. is no such matter spoken of nor fasting once named 12 The opinion of Purgatorie and satisfaction of sinnes after this life is the verie doctrine of licentiousnesse to maintaine wicked men in their presumptuousnesse For what hast will they make to amendment and newenesse of life when they haue hope of release after their death Pur. 51. 26. 166. 177. 184. Contra As Saint Augustine saith it is but for small faultes or as M. Allen saith for great faultes that by penance are made small And is God such a mercifull father to punishe small faultes so extremely in his children whom he pardoneth of all their great and heinous sinnes Pur. 448. The latter part of this preteÌ„sed coÌ„tradictoÌ„ is not mine but Allens assertion which I rehearse to shew the absurditie of his expositioÌ„ of the happy rest promised Apo. 13. 13 How long soeuer the true Church were hidden whether iâ— were a 1000. years or 2000. yeares this is certaine that out of this Church none could be saued Ar. 73. Contra here cap. 5. he counteth it ynough if the faith of their saluation were in the onely foundation Iesus Christ and that in such a sense as agreeth to men indeed out of the Church The whole faith of their saluation is in the onely foundation Iesus Christ in such such sense as I speake cannot be out of the Church 14 They which hold the foundation that is Christ to wit the Article of Iustification by the onely mercy of God and of the onely sonne of God are doubtlesse members of the true Church of Christ. Ar. 61. â—4 Pur. 2â—8 Contra here cap. 10. where he saith that the Anabaptists are abhominable heretikes and that they are not ProtestaÌ„ts who yet do hold that article iâ—mp as the ProtestaÌ„ts do It is a loudly and neuer saide of me that the Anabaptists do hold that article iump as the protestants 15 A generall departing from the faith was foreshewed and it was fulfilled An. 607. Contra The Church was neuer lost neither when the departing was generall but hidden in the wildernesse that is from the eyes of the world She is to this day preserued and shal be to the worlds end Christ hath neuer wanted his Spouse in earth he hath euer beene a head without a body Ar. 36. 38. Ar. 71. 78. 79. 80. The generall departing from the faith was not of all persons but of most in all nations and therefore the Church neuer failed 16 The primitiue Church of the Apostles hath continued vnto this day by succession not of persons and places but of the doctrine faith and trueth These verte wordes conteine a manifest contradiction For how can a Church or doctrine faith and trueth continue but in persons and places in so much that he saith also We doubt not but God hath alway stirred vp some faithfull teachers that haue instructed his Church in the necessarie pointes of Christian Doctrine Ar. 2. 96. 26. 27. These wordes conteine no contradiction For the Church may continewe in persons and places although not by continual succession of persons in the same places Bristow forgetteth his rules of contradiction opposing coÌ„tinuance by succession of persons and places to continuance in persons and places 17 The true Church of Christ hath alwayes stoode stedfast inseparable from Christ her head though the blinde world when they see her will not acknowledge her to be his Spouse but persecute her as if she were an adultresse Contra in the same place The true Church vnder the Emperours Constantinus Constans and Valens was greatly infected with the heresie of Arius And in another place The visible Church may become an adultresse and be diuorsed from Christ. And so is that faithfull Church of Rome become an harlâ—â— This contradiction is made vp with a falsification of my wordes The true Church vnder the Emperours Constantius c. For I say not the true Church but speake generally of the Church which suffered persecution vntill CoÌ„stantine which was the visible Church vnder which name many heretikes were persecuted Visible Church is not alwaies the true Church The 18 The true Church consisting of Gods elect and the liuely members of the body of Christ shall neuer commit such adulterie c. But the visible Church may separate her selfe from Christ. As though there were an other Church besides the visible Church and so two churches Contra Wheresoeuer the Catholike Church be in partes it is one body of Christ. There are not two Churches but one The catholike Church is alwaies inuisible the militant Church on earth which is a part thereof is to the world sometime visible and sometimes not seene of the world The 19 Anno. 607. the Church fled into the wildernes that is out of the sight and knowledg of the world there to remaine a long season where all this while God hath preserued her vntill such time as he thought good now in our dayes to bring her
of Christe heareth the voice of Christe and is ruled thereby The church of GOD is the piller and stay of truth so called because that where so euer the church is either visible or inuisible there is the trueth Saint Paule by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers howe great a burthen and charge they sustaine that the trueth of the Gospell can not be continued in the world but by their ministerie in the church of God which is the piller and stay of truth This their duetie true preachers considering are diligent in their calling to preach the trueth As our church is the piller and stay of trueth so is she also the house of trueth which knoweth nothing but him that is the trueth it selfe Iesus Christ and his most holy Scripture in which this trueth is signed and testified We require you to beleeue the true Catholike church onely and immediatly againe to the contrarie We require you not to beleeue any one companie of men more than an other Ar. 82. 81. 93. 99. 62. 77. 100. 108. 62. This contradiction is easily reconciled The true Church may erre but not in any point that is necessarie to euerlasting saluation We require men to beleeue the true Catholike Church only not for the companie but for the trueth 34 The error of Purgatorie and praying for the deade is continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christe vnto a plaine departing away into the church of Antichrist Contra The tâ—ue and onely church of God is so guided by Gods spirite and directed by his word that she can not induce any damnable error to conâ—â—nâ—â— No nor suffereth any man daÌ„nably abusing her religion without open reprehension and yet Purgatorie c. came in with silence The error of praying for the dead was not damnable while it continued in the Church of Christ the Church of Antichrist by derogating full satisfaction from the bloud of Christ hath made it damnable 35 The church of Christ hath of the holie Ghost a iudgement to discerne true writings from counterfets and the worde of GOD of infallible veritie from the writing of men which might erre She hath commended the bookes of holy Scripture to be beleeued of all true Christians We persuade vs of the authoritie of Gods booke because we haue most stedfast assurance of Gods spirite for the authoritie of it with the testimonie of the true church in all ages Ar. 5. 4. 9. Contra All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you For other writings may be counted the workes of their authours without your censure the holy Scripture may not be counted the worde of God except you list so to allow it Other writings are of credite according to the authoritie of the writers The holie Scriptures with you houe not credite according to the authoritie of God the authour of them but according to your determination Pur. 219. Here is no shewe of contradiction but a wretched begging of the principle that the Popish Church is the true Church of Christ. Of such contradictions you may make not 50 but 500000. 36 Those that by true Christians haue bene called and counted for heretikes haue proued so in deede Ar. 65. Contra This Demaund hath a false principle that the church ought to be a Christian mans onely it is not in Doctor Allens principle stay in al troubles and tempestes The first proposition is an Ironicall imitation of Allens absurd proposition and not an absolute assertion of mine 37 And therefore the Papistes being called and counted heretikes of true Christians that is of the Protestantes without doubt are heretikes in deede Ar 65. Contra. He is a foolish Sophister that reasoneth from names to things as you doe most vainely and childishly Ar. 66. The former proposition is the conclusion which I retort vpon Allens principle that whosoeuer by true christians are called heretikes do proue so in deede 38 There is neuer heresie but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question Ar. 86. Contra Augustines argument of the publike prayers of the church tooke no hold of the Pelagians by force of trueth that is in it but by their owne confession and graunt of that prayer to be godly and them to be of the church that so prayed But now the controuersie is not onely of the substance of doctrine but of the church it selfe also The Donatistes challenged the church to themselues Pur. 367. Here is not so much as any shadowe of contradiction for in the heresie of the Donatists the chiefest controuersy was of the Church as for the prayer of the Church they vsed it themselues as well as the true Catholikes out of which prayer Augustine gathereth an argument against them 39 But for the chiefe pointes of christian religion and the foundation of our faith that is Reall presence c. the most approued writers are vtterly against you and therefore can not be of your church Contra But the Lutheranes and Zuinglians as it pleaseth you to call them are of one true church although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament the one assirming a Reall presence the other denying it The contradiction is easily auoided by shewing that the reall presence among a number of thinges in that place rehearsed may be one chiefe point of religion and yet not a foundation of our faith For I say the auncient fathers agree with vs in the chiefe points of religion and the foundation of our faith which seeing the Lutherans hold with vs the dissent in one chiefe point of religion can not disseuer them from the Church and yet they dissent not vnto idolatrie as the Papists doe And where Bristow slandereth mee to say that I count the errors of some of that latter sort of old fathers in honoring reliques inuocation of Saints merits traditions vnwritten verities images of the crosse to be contrary to the foundation he is able to shewe no place where I so affirme And albeit they did so earnestly maintaine some of those errors that they condemned by their priuate sensure the contrary truth for heresies yet it followeth not that they were heretikes For it is one thing to hold an error earnestly an other to holde it obstinatly so that he is condemned of his owne conscience when he will not yeeld to the manifest truth plamly proued out of the worde of God 40 We knowe that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously erre in any article of faith concerning the substance of religion Luther Caluine and Bucer shall come with Christ to iudge the world As for Illyrians if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament and differ onely in ceremonies which can not diuide them from the faith Ar. 10. 61. Pur. 403. Contra What Flaccius or any such as he is hath saide neither doe I knowe neither doe I regard let them aunswere for them selues But whereas you charge M.
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
our price as it is called the bodie of Christ for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They did eate that breade which was the Lorde hee did eate the breade of the Lorde against the Lord. What should I saye more when Sander confesseth that Saint Augustine saith de ciuitat Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ and citeth other words of August De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ and drinke the bloude of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certaine kinde of way As though S. Augustine said saith he Euery way the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in the supper of our Lorde But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine you shall heare by his owne words Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit saÌ„guinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neither are euill men to be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ for to speake nothing of other matters they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not as farre as a sacrament goeth but in verie deede to eate the fleshe of Christ and to drinke his bloude This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde not onely what he himselfe but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father seemeth to saye of wicked men eating the bodie of Christ namely that they doe it Sacramento tenus but not reuera they eate the bodie of Christ as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament but not in deede The sixte witnesse is Gregorie in prim reg libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice Of these words Sander can gather nothing but that hee addeth of his owne that the healthfull sacrifice is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ which Gregorie neither saith nor meaneth but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully The laste that speaketh for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie although it be not so great as that we should bee bounde to take him for a lawfull witnesse yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued we will admitte him Hâ—â— compareth saith Sander that man to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate illud inestimabile inuiolabile domini corpus that inestimable and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde Howe coulde hee violate it with his members if no part of his bodie touched it I answere by violating the sacrament thereof which they receiue vnfaithfullie and contemptuously Howe can hee treade vnder his feete the sonne of God and esteeme the bloude in which he was sanctified coÌ„mon c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other with his bodie Heb. 10. Let the reader iudge whether the iudgement of the Fathers doeth fauour Sander more then the Apologie If any man will see more of this controuersie he may resort to mine answere vnto Heskins lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter to the 56. CAP. IIII. What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie and bloude The Apologie saieth that in the supper there is truely deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ the fleshe of the sonne of God quickening our soules the foode of immortalitie grace trueth life This doctrine Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike but out of it he will prooue the Popish reall presence and that by two arguments The first reason is Christ deliuered but one thing at each time when he said This and This The Apologie confesseth that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine but in appearance and his bodie and bloude onely in deede I denie the Maior for vnto the faithfull of whom the Apologie speaketh he deliuered two thinges of diuerse natures in one sacrament or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures the bread and wine corporally his bodie and bloud spiritually as Irenaeus saith Neither is there such force in this and this but that one thing of diuerse natures or two things in one mysterie may be signified thereby When God said This is the passeouer it were a madde conclusion to say it were no Lambe or This is the newe Testament therefore it is not his bloude because This can bee but one thing Yet ' Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument O masters trueth is straunge and by the aduersaries owne weapon getteth the victorie His second reason is When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature The nature of a bodie is to be deliuered after a bodily maner therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily The Maior is false for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered when it is deliuered after a spiritual and diuine maner For in the saying of the Apologie truely is contrarie to falsly not to spiritually And all the Papists confesse that the body of Christ may be must be eaten spiritually Which of them dare say the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely when it is eaten spiritually or not eaten when it is eaten spiritually euen without the sacrament Againe if Sander like this Maior I will thus inferre vpon it When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once and that to fill with his owne quantitie c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered as it occupieth but one place reteyneth quantitie and all other things required in the nature of a true bodie Finally whereas Sander in the determination of the Apologie misseth quickening of our bodies but that he is disposed to play Momus hee might haue founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules and more properly CAP. V. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ. The Apologie saith that by the partaking of the body and bloude of
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
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
handes c this is the Passeouer that is a Sacrament of the Passeouer You see that the Pronowne being the singular number may demonstrate a singular substance but with all actions belonging to it CAP. VI. That the Pronowne This pointeth finallie to the body bâ—â—â—d and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certeine kinde of foode He taketh for proued that which is proued to be vntrue that the Pronowne This pointeth not the bread wine and thereof concludeth that it pointeth onely the bodie and bloud but the first is false ergo the later But if you be so hastie saieth Sander that you will not tarie the speaking of foure wordes to know what particular and finall substance the Pronown This doth point vnto then this doeth meane this eatable thing Sir our haste is not so great but we can stay a much longer time to knowe our masters meaning But seeing you beare vs in hande that one substance is made of another by these wordes spoken which aske a time in speaking and you your selues determine at what instant the change is soudenly made al at once and would proue the same by the Pronowne This and euery other of the wordes you must giue vs leaue to consider euery moment of time in which they are spoken For then euery worde is true when the things whereof the wordes are signes agree with the worde in that time in which they are vttered for this proposition euery man is dead cannot be true because euery man shall die before euery man be dead And to that you saye This meaneth this eatable thing I affirme you are neuer the neere for if there bee not bread what thing is there eatable before it be the bodyâ— and the bodie it is not before the wordes are all vttered If by an eatable thing you meane Duns his indiuiduum vagum then you renounce your former position so often aduouched that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certaine substance and so you are rapped on the scoâ—se on both sides and with your owne staues CAP. VII The naming of the chaliâ—e prooueth not the rest of Christes wordes to be figuratiue He were a madde man that would reason so that because one word is figuratiue all the rest must be figuratiue but this is a good argument one word is figuratiue ergo more may be and figuratiue speeches are net inconuenient to be vsed in the institutioÌ„ of a Sacrament Therefore Sander might haue spared his seuen reasons which he bringeth to prooue that the naming of the chalis prooueth not all the rest of the wordes to be figuratiue But the naming of the chalis the new Testament in his bloud doth inuincibly prooue al the other speeches to be figuratiue For the same sense is of these wordes This is my bloud and of these This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud but the sense of these latter words is figuratiue not only in respect of the word chalis but of the new Testament in his bloud ergo the sense of the former wordes is figuratiue And whereas Sander saieth the Apostles could not coniecture that est was put for significat which fewe but great doctors can discerne token of thinges to be somtime called by the names of thinges themselues I say he doth the Apostles wrong who beeing brought vp in the daiely exercise of the Sacramentes of the lawe could not be ignorant that the Lambe was called the Passeouer whereof it was a token and circumcision the couenant of God whereof it was a seale and so of many other but these two were their principall Sacramentes vnto which with vs baptisme and the Lordes supper doth answere CAP. VIII That the wordes of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper Why these wordes of our sauiour This is my body be not like other of his sayings in which he is said to be the dore the way the true vine Iohn Bapt. to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter which is specially intituled against Master Nowels chalenge and by him throughly confuted The vniuersall consent that he boasteth of in discerning of figuratiue speeches can neuer be prooued to haue receiued the wordes of Christ for proper Two reasons yet he alleageth why none of those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like the wordes of the supper One for that they name two seuerall natures as Iohn baptist and Elias That is false for not naming Iohn Baptist Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is Helias The other they speake not of any certeine thing or else they point not to it as to a thing present This is likwise false for Helias was a certeine thing and hee that was pointed vnto by the Pronâ—une This was present Last of all where he chalengeth vs to shewe where that Proposition is figuratiue which first instituteth and maketh any thing I haue shewed before that the propositions which God vseth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal are figuratiue For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh he saieth to Abraham this is my couenant Gen. 17. And of the Lambe to bee slaine and vsed as he appointeth he saith you shall eate it in haste for it is the Passeouer of the Lorde These are words of institution yet are they figuratiue for circumcision was not the couenant nor the Lambe the Passeouer but figuratiuely seales signes and tokens of them CAP. IX It is shewed by 27 circumstances of Christes supper that hee made his reall flesh and bloud present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper The first circumstance of Christs last supper is to consider who made it Howe necessarie the consideration of the circumstances of euery place of Scripture is for the true vnderstanding thereof euerie wise man will acknowledge but no circumstance alone nor all the circumstances together do prooue these wordes of Christ to be proper and not figuratiue As first we acknowledge the maker of the supper to be almighty to do whatsoeuer it pleased him but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh promiseth his flesh and giueth his flesh all which we constantly beleeue yet it followeth not that he purposed to giue his flesh in the Sacrament after his incarnation otherwise then he gaue it to the Patriaâ—kes before his incarnation Acknowledging also the prouidence wisdome trueth and goodnesse of the speaker we affirme that he speaketh heere most wisely prouidently truely and well but yet figuratiuely without that he doth blind his spouse with figuratiue wordes as Sander saith which he doth no more then God blinded his spowse the Church of Israel with figuratiue wordes when he spake figuratiuely in the institution of the Sacramentes of circumcision and of the Paschall lambe The second circumstance may be to consider the time when the supper was made The
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
supper Bertrame whome Sander affirmeth to be but suspected in his booke De corpore sanguine Domini which is extant for euery man to reade plainly determineth against the Popish reall presence and transubstantiation And whereas Sander offereth a large scope as he saith that we should name one bishop in the whole earth who before the time of Berengarius reprooued the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I can name none so conueniently as Aelfricke sometime Archbishop of Canterburie with al the Saxon bishops in his time who set foorth an Homily to be read on Easter day vnto the people and allowed certeine Epistles of the saide Aelfricke in which is conteined a plaine and manifest denyall of that bodily presence for which wee striue and an approbation of the onely spirituall manner of presence which wee teache If Sander will cauill that although they so taught they reproued not the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent men how they would haue accused any man that obstinately should haue maintained a doctrine contrarie to their common beliefe and consent Howe the fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued concerning the blessed Sacrament namely S. August whom Sander half suspecteth and yet saith he is not against them because his communion is not forsaken it hath ben plentifully and often shewed is not here to be repeted But Hilarie saith it is the profession of our Lorde the faith of the Church that the Sacrament is truely the flesh and bloud of Christ therefore there is no place left of doubting Certeinly we doubt not but to the worthy receiuer the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be after a spirituall manner but wee are out of doubt that our Sauiour Christ reteining the nature of his bodie would not make the same insensible impalpable incircumscriptible c. It is not therefore the presence nor the reall presence rightly vnderstood but the bodily presence which we denye and no man affirmed for sixe hundred yeres after Christ except perhaps Marcus the heretike that changed the colour of the wine by inchantment that it might bee thought that Christe had dropped his bloud into his chalice as Irenaeus testifieth lib. 1. Cap. 9. Likewise we aunswere to Epiphanius we belieue the wordes of Christ to be true which by grace hath giuen vs bread and wine to bee his bodie and bloud spiritually euen as the water of baptisme to be regeneration which similitude Epiphanius vseth euen as he doth this of the supper to shewe that wee are truely made according to the image of God not by nature but by grace Epiph. Anch. But Sander hath a pleasant similitude to shewe that the Papistes are not gone from the Apostles and auncient fathers because a man liuing in these dayes should be vniustly charged with treason for disobeying of William the Conquerour or being the sonne of him that disobeyed William the Conquerour when he answereth that he liued not vnder that king and al his ancestours in their dayes were obedient to such kings vnder whome they liued A worshipfull similitude But if William the Conquerour made a lawe that whosoeuer committeth these things or these things shal be deemed a traitour and it is prooued that thou hast committed some of them what will the former answere auaile thee it is the doctrine and not the persons of the Apostles and auncient fathers from which you are accused to haue departed But which of the successours of the Apostles saith Sander sent Berengarius to preach that doctrine whereof they helde the contrary I aunswere so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine which the Apostles themselues commaunded to bee taught he needed no speciall commission from them that were departed from the Apostles doctrine to reprooue them for he was sent of God who opened his eyes to see the trueth and their errours that sitting in the chaires of the Apostles taught a doctrine contrarie to the faith of the Apostles But Sander will at once prooue that all citizens of the house of God through the world witnessed with one voice and in one worde that they beleeued the bodily presence For the olde custome was at the wordes of consecration and at the time of the receiuing the Sacrament which was saide to be the bodie and bloud of Christ to say Amen that is to affirme it was so And this Sander prooueth by manie witnesses which is needelesse for wee knowe it as well as he But this prooueth no carnall nor bodily manner of presence except Sander can proue that it was tolde them this to bee the body and bloud of Christ without any figure really corporally present vnder the onely shapes of bread and wine as they teache nowe Yes saith Sander a figuratiue speach soundeth otherwise then we must thinke whereto Amen must not be answered What shall wee then answere to these wordes of Christ This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud are not these the wordes of consecration also But what was meant by Amen and what the Sacrament is S. Augustine teacheth serm ad infantes Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in mens a positum est Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondâ—tis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuuâ— c. Therefore if you be the bodie receiue the Lordes mysteries whereunto you are You answere Amen and by so aunswering you subscribe Be thou a member of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true These wordes declare that not the reall presence was aduouched by the worde Amen but the spirituall participation of the mysticall body of Christ by the faithfull But Leo Ser. 6. de Ieiu 7. mensis saith Sic sacrae c you ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye dout nothing at all of the trueth of the body and bloode of Christ for that thing is taken in the mouth which is beleeued in faith And Amen is in vaine answered of them who dispute against that which is receiued In these sayings Sander vrgeth that it is receaued with the mouth as though Leo did meane that whatsoeuer was beleeued in faith was receaued in the mouth yet the worde is are sumitur it is receaued by the mouth which is not all one with in the mouth For the bodie of Christ may be receaued by the mouth as by an instrument that receaueth the visible sacrament thereof and yet the body is not receaued into the mouth But Leo speaketh manifestly against the Manichees which denied that Christ had a true bodie exhorting Christians not to doubte thereof for except they beleeued faithfully that Christ had a true bodie they coulde not with their mouth receaue a sacrament of that body which they beleeued not to bee nor truely answere Amen when they disputed against the
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
answered partly because Sander bringeth no newe matter in this replie but either such as he hath brought in the sixe bookes before and partly because his chiefe and most generall answere is nothing but a begging of the whole matter in controuersie with an affirming and denying grounded vpon his owne authoritie By meanes whereof in this one article he hath noted iump 218 vntruethes howe well and iustely let the readers of his booke and Master Iewels replie be iudges As for mee I will not examine them all but onely so manie as touch the controuersie with any shewe of argument sauing that in a fewe of the first I will giue the reader a taste that hee may iudge of the rest And whereas hee chargeth the Bishoppe for setting one trueth against another for falsifying of autorities for misconstruing of their meaning c as the matters shall occurre I wil not faile to consider them CAP. I. Master Iewell hath not answered Doctor Harding well touching the wordes of Christes supper in this article Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first sixe hundreth yeares to beleeue that Christs bodie is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament To giue a tast as I promised of Sanders collection of vntrueths I will examine a fewe The first vntruth is noted to be this Master Iewell said Whether Christes body be corporally in the Sacrament Harding answereth not one worde Harding had saide The termes really substantially c. are sounde in the doctors treating of the true being of Christs bodie in the Sacrament Ergo saith Sander Master Iewell saide not truely for hee prooueth afterwarde Christes bodie to bee in the Sacrament Heere the reason of this vntrueth is the whole matter in controuersie whether Harding haue proued in deed that which he intended The 2. vntruth Iewell saith in this matter hee is able to alledge nothing for direct proofe Harding had saide Christian people haue euer beene so taught of that kind of preseÌ„ce which is founded vpon Christs plaine words Ergo saith Sander hee was able to alleage somewhat But what I pray you That Christian people were euer so taught which is false that this doctrine is grounded vpon Christs words which is false also For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article Harding saith the three Euangelists and Saint Paul Ergo saith Sander there is the thirde vntrueth for M. Iewel hath words plainely written c. But if these words prooue the presence according to the article the controuersie should be at an ende The 4. vntruth is that M. Iewell saith Harding vpon the wordes of the institution foundeth his carnall presence in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament Sander replieth it is lesse carnall grosse and fleshly to haue the substance of Christs corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of breade then to bee in his mothers wombe as Marcion and Apelles counted it or to make a lye when he saide take eate this c As though the graunting of Christes humanitie prooued the Popish presence which is contrarie to the truth of his humanitie or that Christ might not say truely the Sacrament to be his bodie except it were after that manner his bodie His presence in spirituall manner we graunt but we vnderstande spirituall manner to bee otherwise then inuisiblie for manie thinges may be so present that they are not seene and yet be not spiritually but corporally present The fift vntrueth is that M. Iewell saith Christ vseth no leading to that carnall presence Sander answereth The word This leadeth the Apostles to that vnderstanding as if I say this is a Lyon it will followe vnder this visible forme that I shewe a Lyon is substantially contained c. As right as a rammes horne If I shew a king or a strong man I may say truely in some sense This is a Lyon For if I shew one substance and affirme another of it the speach must needes be either false or figuratiue The sixt vntruth and a forged lye is that Master Iewell saith D. Fisher saith this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words as Sander reherseth them are these No man shall proue by the bare words of the Gospel that any priest in these dayes doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ. Againe No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our masse the verie presence of Christs bodie and bloude is made Iudge indifferentlie of the words what lye Iewell hath forged Although Fisher meant that by the interpretation of the fathers and practise of the Church the vnderstanding of the Gospell is more certainely obtained then by the bare words of the Gospell But Fisher hath other wordes Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cùm nec isâ—ud in scripturis contineatur which M. Iewel beginneth to english thus It cannot therefore be prooued by any scripture Here Sander playeth the schoolemaster and apposeth him What cannot be proued M. Iewel giue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it cannot saith Sander What cannot Wherevpon is grounded the 7. vntrueth when Iewel saith Doct. Fisher saith the carnall presence cannot be proued neither by these words this is my bodie nor by any other But I put case Master Iewell woulde answere your deepe demaunde in saying that potest in this place is a verbe impersonall and therefore he can giue it no nominatiue case at all but must english it thus non potest it cannot If you will aske him why he saith then the carnall presence cannot bee prooued as though presence were the nominatiue case he will answere you he doth not so construe or translate the Latine but he inferreth that conclusion vpon Fishers wordes No worde is put whereby it may be prooued that in our Masse the verie presence of Christes bodie and bloude is made But your learning wil haue the whole speach following to bee the nominatiue I say let it so bee if you will needes haue it so yet Master Iewels conclusion is true That Fisher affirmeth the carnall presence cannot bee prooued to bee made either by laye man or Priest ergo it cannot bee prooued at all Yet saith Sander Howe manie enormous faults haue you committed heere master Iewell First Harding affirmed these wordes This is my bodie to teach a reall presence Fisher spake of these words Make this thing and not of these wordes This is my bodie This were an enormous fault if Fisher had not saide Non potest per vllam scripturam probari it cannot be prooued by any scripture but seeing he saide so this is an enormous slanderous impudent and foolish lye and cauill of Sander Secondly Harding spake of the reall
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
deprauing M. Iewels meaning which is that Christ in deede not phantastically or imaginatiuely but truely after a wonderful manner hath ioyned vs both body soule vnto himselfe by baptisme CAP. XX. Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. Fulke Euen as really as he dwelleth by baptisme none otherwise Sander He promiseth to declare that Christ dwelleth foure wayes in our body really when he commeth to the fourth way he spendeth all his strength to declare that Christs bodie is not really dwelling in our bodies Fulke I pitie your beggerly sophistrie grounded vpon the diuerse taking of the worde really CAP. XXI Sander That Christes bodie is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostomes wordes Harding By this Sacrament saith Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it were into one lump with himself and that not by faith only but he maketh vs his own bodie in deede Re ipsa which is no other to say then really Iewell This place would haue stand M. Harding in better steede if Chrysostome had said Christ mingleth his bodie with the Sacrament and driueth himselfe it into one lumpe Sander M. Iewel marketh not that Sacrament to be of it selfe the reall bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread wine therfore to say Christ is mingled with the sacrament were to say Christ is mingled with himselfe Fulke Sanders best argument is the whole matter in question alas poore wretched begger Iewell Neither wil M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simply without figure whereof it followeth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament Sander He meaneth that Christes own bodie is ioyned to ours simply without any figure of Rhetorike or Grammar but not without a mysticall figure Fulke If he meane that he mingleth himselfe with 〈◊〉 into one lump wtout al figure of Rhetorik then without all figure simply we are one lump with him as a lumpe of dough is one As for our wonderfull coniunction with him it is not that which is the figure but the mingling into one lumpe which are the words of Chrysostome Iewel It is a hot kind of speach such as Chrysostom was much delighted with It is a speach farre passing the common sense course of trueth Sander I thought you would bring it to a figure of speach but he taught it for a truth as we shal see anone Fulke As though an hyperbolical speach may not be true in any sense because it is not true in the common sense Iewell Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigor of the same speach by these words vt ita dicam which is as it were or if I may be bold so to say Sander In other places he vseth the terme of mingling without correction Fulke But in the same sense that he vseth it nowe with correction Sander The correction must be referred to the similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough wherunto he alludeth Fulke You are welcome home to a figuratiue speache Sander What if he vse no such correction or qualifying for as the edition of Parise doth witnesse his Greek wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himselfe with vs. Fulke If no other edition witnesse for the Latine translation let the translator answere for himself But his words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are most aptly translated in Latine subigit seipsum nobiscum he kneadeth himselfe with vs which if it be not a figuratiue speach I report me to you Iewell In such phrase Anacletus saith the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oyle Sander Pope Anacletus whose Epistle you esteeme as much as your shooe sole nameth not olcum oyle but holy chrisme Fulke And is not your chrisme oyle Although the Epistle be counterfeite and not worth a shooe latchet yet the phrase is vsed in it by him whosoeuer fained it and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation Iewel Alexander saith the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments Sander The worlde goeth hard with his note booke when he flieth to these decretall Epistles for the proofe of any thing especially for Latine phrases Fulke And why may not your owne suborned witnesses be examined to see if they can depose any thing against your owne selues that haue set vp such knightes of the post as those decretall Epistles are whome you your selfe flout for their Latine phrases which in deede can scarse keepe themselues within the bondes of congruitie Master Iewel hath plentifully displayed their forgerie so that he feareth not any mention of Masse or chrisme to be founde in them Iewell Nyssenus sayeth Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghoste Sander That saying prooueth that the grace of the holy ghost was really in S. Stephen as Christes body i◠really mingled with our bodies Fulke It might likewise prooue that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost for if you take grace for the fauor of God it was not really in Stephen but in the holy ghost himself If the one be absured so is the other except it be taken figuratiuely Iewel Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderfull coniunction which is betweene Christ and vs euen in one person Sander He confesseth more then we aske for we are not one person with Christ. Fulke Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity nor as his humanity assumpted into the deitie maketh one person with his death but as he is our head and the Church his body which is the fullnesse of him that filleth all in all things Where Sander confesseth the matter it is folly to striue for the phrase Iewell Leo saith the body of him that is regenerat is made the flesh of him that was crucified Sander Pope Leo speaketh of his mysticall flesh Fulke B. Leo speaketh of his naturall flesh but by a spirituall and mysticall kinde of making such as our regeneration is Iewell S. Augustine saith we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whole man Sander He saith not one whole man but the whole man Fulke What number is man Master Doctor the singular or the plurall Sander Hee speaketh of a mysticall body of diuerse members made vp and perfected into a whole collegiat body But Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning himselfe to euery faithfull man Fulke Sander vnderstandeth not the mysticall body of Christ which compareth it to a collegiat bodye or ciuill corporation with which it hath small similitude The scripture compareth it to a naturall body receiuing life and sense from the head Christes ioyning of himselfe to euery one of vs maketh vs all one body in him Iew. As we are by baptisme made Christes fleshe Christ in the same sense Chrysostome saith wee are made one lumpe with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himselfe with vs. Sand.
incarnation because his soule was illuminated with the visioÌ„ of God to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where cleare vision is there is no faith saith Sander Not considering that Christ did voluntarily empty him selfe of all such pretogatiues of his godheade as might hinder him to haue experience of all our infirmities except sinne And therfore S. Luke testifieth that Iesus incresed in wisedom and stature and fauour with God men But where such cleare vision is as Sand. imagineth there is no increase of wisdome gods gifts And concerning faith read the 22. Psal. which is a prophecie of Christ professing his constant faith in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked which saide he trusted in God let him deliuer him c. Yea the Apostle to the Hebrewes proueth the humanitie of Christ by this Psal. 16. where the prophet speaketh in the person of Christ I wil put my trust in him that is in God yet Sander saith he neuer had faith but more then faith As though a greater a more perfect faith were not faith Iewel Likewise he saith we are ioyned vnto Christ by the regeneration of one nature and againe wee are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptisme hereof he coÌ„cludeth therefore are we naturally ioyned to him Sand. S. Hilarie hath not the terme naturally of our coniunction vnto Christ by baptisme which terme D. Harding hath found to appertaine to the sacrament Fulke A simple quarel to make such outcries of the terme naturally when Hilarie hath termes in all reasonable mens iudgements equiualent concluding that all Christians are one not onely by wil but also by nature Because they are cloathed with one Christ by the nature of one baptisme And where I pray you hath either Harding or you found that Christs body is in yâ— sacrament naturally according to M. Iewels challenge wil you neuer leaue this beggerly sophistrie Harding hath found this terme to appertaine to the sacrament ergo he hath answered M. Iewels challenge Iewel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundrie meanes and therfore not onely as M. Harding holdeth by receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by baptisme euen so and none otherwise hee is in vs by the sacrament of his bodie Sand. It is not confessed that Christ is in vs naturally c. Fulke But it is prooued that by nature wee are one with him But that Christ shoulde be corporally in our bodies Hilarie saith neither of faith baptisme nor of the supper Sand. You distinguish regeneration from baptisme as though baptisme were not the sacrament that did regenerate Fulke He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect as you make it or the signe from the thing signified as Hilarie meaneth deserueth no reproofe in wisemens iudgement Sand. If Christ be none otherwise in vs by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptisme why do you make it a seuerall way from the other before named Fulke Because all these 4. seuerall wayes may notwithstanding agree in one spirituall manner of coniunction which hath no neede of your Popish reall presence Sand. The vnitie of Christes birth sufficeth not to proue that Christ is one with vs for that vnitie of nature might be thought to pertaine no more to the good then to the euill Fulke There is farther required the vertue of Christs spirite to make that naturall vnitie effectuall to giue vs eternal life this vniting vertue is testified by the sacrament Sand. S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstande that in the sacrament we take the word made flesh so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh Fulk He expoundeth himself saying we take it verily vnder a mysterie vnder a sacrament which mysterie is not the forme breade and wine for that is an open and sensible thing Iewell That wee verily and vndoubtedly receiue Christs bodie in the sacrament it is neither denied nor in question Sand. You saide before that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Iohn which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure againe you said the bread is a figure this is confuse and contrarie doctrine Fulke This is wretched wrangling An outward sacrament which is a figure added to spirituall eating taketh not away spirituall eating but helpeth our faith in spirituall eating Sand. You confessed before that the sacrament is receiued with the mouâ—â— now you confesse that Christs bodie is receiued in the sacrament therefore Christs bodie is receiued with the mouth Fulke Your minor shoulde be the sacrament is Christs bodie which in your sense is not yet confessed otherwise your syllogisme is as good as this Baptisme is receiued on the outside of the bodie the holy ghost is receiued in baptisme therfore the holyghost is receiued on the outside of the bodie Sand. The aduerbe verily in this place doth signifie naturally really and substantially For as the worde is made flesh really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meate The worde was not made flesh onely by our faith but in trueth of his substance Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith onely but in trueth of his substance Fulk The aduerbe verily in this place signifieth truly according to the thing but not that according to the manner of the thing in al points wee take the flesh of Christ in the Lordes meate as the same was incarnate in the Virgins wombe but as Hilarie himselfe saith afterwarde Verè sub mysterio We receiue the flesh of his bodie truly vnder a mysterie which excludeth naturally or a natural manner of receiuing We eate Christ as truely as he was made man borne of the Virgin Mary but not in the same manner we eate him not sensibly visibly palpablie in length bredth and thicknesse as hee was made fleshe but vnder a mysterie or sacrament of his flesh which is communicated vnto vs after a spirituall manner And where you say the worde was not made flesh onely by our faith therefore we take his flesh not by faith onely Neither is the antecedent true nor the conclusion right For Christ was not made flesh onely by our faith nor by our faith at all For our faith was no meane of his incarnation Where vpon I might as rightly conclude The word was not made flesh by our faith at all therefore we take not the worde being made flesh by faith at all This argument is as good vpon the aduerbe verily vsed by S. Hilarie as that which you make Iewel It is the bread of the heart hunger thou within thirst thou within Sand. As Christ by taking real flesh is much the better breade of the heart hungred within so it is extreme madnesse to thinke that Christes bodie giuen vnder the forme of breade is therefore lesse hungred
true but with Cyril in these speaches it is nothing but true as he expoundeth himselfe Sander That which you saide of Saint Augustine Corporaliter non vmbraliter sed verè solidè I could not finde it vpon the 67. Psalm Fulke Then you sought it verie negligently for there it is written vpon the 16. verse of that Psalme in these words In ipso quippe inhabitat omnis plâ—nitudo diuinitatis non vmbraliter tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto sed corporaliter id est solidè atque veraciter For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the diuinitie not shadowedly as in the temple made by king Salomon but corporally that is to say soundly and truely This exposition of the worde corporally pleased you not and therefore you coulde not finde it for if you had red ouer little more then halfe the discourse vpon the Psalm you must needs haue found it Sander Saith not Cyrill that the mysticall blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs Fulke He saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing when it is wrought in vs maketh him to dwell also corporally in vs. Iewel Saint Paul saith The heathens are become concorporall and partakers of the promise in Iesu Christ. Sander The word corporall signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one fellowship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Fulke They are declared by S. Paul to be In Christ by the Gospell Iewell By the wordes corporally naturally a full perfect spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasies Sander Is not that coniunction which is by faith syncere loue wherof Cyrill saith we are not onely ioyned thereby but quoque also corporally a full perfect spirituall coniunction Fulke It is not full perfect by faith and loue except we be spiritually fed with the bodie blod of Christ. Sander If corporally be nothing else to say but truly without imagination How construe you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ Fulke I construe them as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said which place you list not to find And I pray you do you coÌ„strue corporally so that you vnderstand the godhead to be a bodie as in your next argument a coniugatis Sander How can you auoid the yoke the dependance the mutual respect that is betweene bodie bodily if bodily be truely then corpus with M. Iewel is latine for trueth Fulke The yoke is auoided when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude vnto that which is meant by the Nowne as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirite but after the similitude or maner of a spirite So angelicè viuere ventoâ—èiactare regaliter epulari To liue like an Angel To boast vainly like the winde To feast like a king c. As for corpus although it be not Latine for trueth yet to signifie trueth sometime it is not harde to finde in the scripture S. Paul saith The Iewish feastes are vmbra futurorum corpus autem Christi the shadowe of things to come but the bodie is of Christ what is the sense of bodie here but trueth As for Sanders feare least Christes naturall bodie might so be transformed into a trueth of faith or charitie or bones without fleshe or skinne without flesh or bones is vaine and foolish yea spiteful and malicious for if bodie and bodily be somtimes taken for trueth and truely according to the circumstance of the place it will not followe that those wordes should always be so taken where the text openly reclaimeth Iewel Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconuenience that our bodie must be in like maner cor porally naturally and fleshly in Christs bodie For Hilarius saith We also are naturally in him And Cyrillus We are corporally in Christ. Sander It is most true during the time of the coniunction Fulke The time of the coniunction is perpetual for Hilarie saith We are inseparably vnited in him lib. 〈◊〉 Teach your Papistes that the bodie of Christ is none owise in their mouth bodie then they are in the body of Christ you may whistle for your Popish real presence Iewel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being Sander That were a fine being M. Iewel that Christs bodie should be in vs corporally yet the being shoulde not be corporall Fulke This is a fine wit M. Sander being demanded of an horsmill to answere of a milhorse M. Iewell would knowe whether any corporall being is required that we I say we should be in Christ corporally You answere of Christes being in vs because you cannot auoide the absurditie of our beeing in Christe corporally after your corporall and carnall vnderstanding Iewell It requireth not any locall being Sander It is a locall being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the forme of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before Fulke That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature But why answere you of Christes being in the Sacrament when M. Iewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally I perceiue your infirmitie you cannot heare on that side Iewel Christ fitting in heauen is here in vs not by a naturall but by a spirituall meane of being Sander The being of Christ in vs by his spirite is also natural concerning the nature of his godhed which is euery where Fulke Still you take chalke for cheese Wee enquire of the beeing of his humanitie whether it may be naturally sitting in heauen and here with vs. Iewell Saint Augustine sayth After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirite And S. Basil and againe S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paul c. Sander Shall one trueth alwayes displace another with you These be sowters arguments Christ is God therefore he is not man he is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Fulke Saint Augustine by his ascension and presence by his spirite concludeth the absence of his humanitie from the earth Ascendit in Coelum non est hîc he hath ascended into heauen and he is not here In Ioan. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument except Saint Augustine be a sowter in fine Master Sanders deintie iudgement Iewell This coniunction is spirituall therefore needeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence Sander The coniunction is spirituall but the maner of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. Fulke The corporal substance needeth not to come vnto vs that a spirituall coniunction may be made betweene Christ and vs the spirite of God is the onely necessarie meane to make a spirituall coniunction Iewel The coniunction that is betweene Christ vs neither doth mingle persons nor vnite substances but it doeth knit our affects togither and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian Sander S. Cyprian
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of