saieth he how without Idolatrie earth may be adored without Idolatrie Christes footestoole may be adored For he tooke earth of earth because flesh is of earth and of Maries flesh he tooke flesh Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam c. And because he walked here in the same flesh and gaue to vs the same flesh to eate for our saluation and no man eateth that flesh but first he adoreth it we haue found how such a footestoole of our Lordes may be adored and not onely we sinne not in adoring it but we sinne in not adoring it Sée now how properly Fulk answereth hereunto Augustine in deede alloweth the adoration of the body of Christ whereof that is a Sacrament but neither can you proue out of that place that he would haue the Sacrament honored nor that the Sacrament is the very body of Christ As though the same flesh which he tooke of the Virgin Marie and in which he walked is not his very body for the same saith he we eate and we adore it before we eate bowing and prostrating our selues euen to euerie particulare holy hoste as now in the Catholike Churches you know and as S. Augustine witnesseth of his time For it foloweth in most manifest wordes Et ad terram quamlibet cum te inclinas atque prosternis non quasi terram intuearis And when thou doest bow and prostrate thy selfe vnto any earth do not consider as it were bare earth Sed illuÌ„ SanctuÌ„ but that holye one whose footestoole it is that thou adorest Et cum adoras illum ne cogitatione remaneas in carne Also when thou adorest him let not thy thought rest in flesh So as they that thought the same an hard saying Vnles a man eate my flesh Ioan. 6. he shall not haue euerlasting life Acceperunt illud stultè they tooke it folishly they thought it carnally and imagined that our Lord would cut off certaine pieces from his body and geue to them Whereas they should haue said to them selues Non sine causa dicit hoc c. He saith not this without cause but because some hidden Sacrament is therein For so he instructed the twelue that did sticke vnto him when the other had for misliking that saying plaide the Apostates Vnderstand spiritually that which I spoke You shall not eate this Body which you see and drinke that bloud which they shal shedde that shall crucifie me that is you shall not eate it drinke it in such forme so as these others imagined I commended vnto you in those words some Sacrament that is such a thing as beeing spiritually vnderstoode will giue you life Although needes it must be visibly celebrated by the visible formes of bread and wine yet it must be inuisibly vnderstood to be not the thing which is séene in the celebration but which is not séene to wit my very body and bloud my very flesh taken of the Virgin In so much that yong children Infants in S. Augustines time at celebrations of the Sacramentes August de Trin. lib. 3. ca. 10. beeing tolde with most graue authoritie whose body and bloud it is will thinke nothing els but our Lord verily to haue appeared in that forme to the eyes of men and that liquor verily to haue flowed out of suche a side beeing striken if they neuer learne by their owne or others experience as striking it and yet no bloud flowe out of it and neuer see that forme of things but at Celebrations of the Sacramentes when it is offered to God and ministred to the receauers because they know not that which is sette on the Altar and after the holy Canon is consumed whence or howe it is made by consecration like as no man knoweth howe the Angels made or assumpted those cloudes and fires to signifie that which they did announce though the Lorde or the holy Ghost was shewed by those corporal formes And therefore those children would imagine that Christ appeared here and suffered in no other forme hearing that this in the Sacrament is his body and his bloud which was shedde for vs. Nowe commeth Fulke and gathereth cleane contrarie to D. Allen as if S. Augustine saide Pur. 309. that these children would imagine nothing of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereas he saith playnely that hearing thus his presence in the Sacrament and that in such sort that it is his bloud whiche was shed they would imagine of no other forme of his appearing suffering signifying as playnely that they néeded onely to be instructed of his other forme and not of any difference at all otherwise betwéene him selfe in his appearing and suffering and him selfe in this Sacrament The next Doctor may be Iustinus Martyr of whose wordes you gather agaynst Transubstantiation thus Ar. 60. Here he playnely affirmeth that the substance of â—he Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies Therefore it remayneth still after consecration That will appeare by his owne words which béeing truely translated are these in his seconde Apologie for the Christians to the Heathen Emperour Antonius Pius This meate with vs is called Eucharistia To the which none is admitted but suche as beleeueth our doctrine to be true and is washed with the Lauer for remission of sinnes and to regeneraration and so beleeueth as Christ hath taught And why suche reuerence For we take not these as the common bread and a common cuppe but euen as our Sauiour Iesus Christ beeing through Gods worde incarnate had fleshe and bloud for our saluation Sic etiam per verbum precationis quod ab ipso est sacratam alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem illius incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus So we haue learned in the Gospelles that the meate which beeing chaunged nourisheth our fleshes and bloud being consecrated through his worde of prayer is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus incarnate He saith not here that the substance of the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies as you pretend but cleane against you he sheweth that it is not absurd bread and wine to be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ seing that euery day vsually they be turned by nature into oure fleshe and bloud when we take them at diner and supper for our nourishment and that to be done by the diuine worde séeing that by Gods worde hée tooke the same fleshe and bloud of the Virgine Marie Ar. 59. You gather likewise of Ireneus his wordes and say Here you see plainely that Ireneus affirmeth the Sacrament after the Consecration to consist of the earthly substance of bread He doth not so affirme Hée there treateth against the olde Heretikes who said Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. all these bodilie creatures yea and our owne bodies also not to be of Gods making who is the Father of Christ oure Lord but of another God whome
they call the Creator counted him an yll one and so likewise all his workes to be euil and our bodies not to ryse againe But this cannot stande with the Eucharist sayth Ireneus Et li. 4. c. 32 li. 5. séeing there to make an oblation to the father the Creators creatures that is bread and wine are taken and made the body and bloud of Christ and our fleshe is nourished to incorruption of the same body and bloud But oure doctrine sayth he is consonant to the Eucharist in the oblation Offerimus enim ei quae sunt eius for holding Christes father to be the Creator we offer to him the thinges that are his whereas the Heretikes cupidum alieni ostendunt eum doe make him gredy of anothers for that he hath commaunded an oblation to bée made to him of the Creators Creatures him selfe not béeing the Creator Et Eucharistia rursus confirmat nostram sententiam and againe the Eucharist in the receiuing coÌ„firmeth our doctrine of the resurrection congruenter communicationem vnitatem praedicantes carnis spiritus considering that agreable to it wee teach ioyning and vnion of flesh and spirite quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis praecipiens vocationem dei â—am non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia For like as the bread which is of earth receiuing Gods inuocation that is the wordes of Consecration now is not common bread as in substance also it was before but Eucharistia consisting of two thinges one earthly which before he called carnem the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of earthly bread as also S. Augustine aboue page calleth it earth both in that forme and also in his owne forme the other heauenly which before he called spiritum because it is the Godhead so also our bodies receiuing the Eucharist now are not corruptible hauing hope of resurrection and therfore now consisting as it were of two things so as the Eucharist doth earthly and heauenly flesh and spirite Which his comparison is very excellent yet as all comparisons and similitules vnlike in some things because the heauenly thing is in the Eucharist in re in déede in our bodies onely in spe in hope And there it is a substance to wit the Godhead here but a qualitie to wit the glory of the resurrection Againe the earthly thing there to wit Christes flesh is vnder the forme of the former coÌ„mon bread without the substance of the same here the earthly thing to wit our flesh after receiuing is vnder the forme of the former corruptible bodies with the substance yea and also with the corruptibilitie of the same bodies The likenes for which he made the comparison is betwéene the two receiuings and the operations of the two things receiued For the bread receiueth and our bodies receiue though againe differently And the words of consecration which the bread receiueth worketh marueilously and the Eucharist which our bodies receiue worketh marueilously though againe differently as I haue said Your last Doctor is Theodoret Whose words you say be directly against Transubstantiation If they were so Pur. 307. Theod. in poly mor. dial 2. it were nothing to the matter in it selfe as I tolde you in the beginning of this Chapter and specially this béeing suche a matter as some auncient Father all yet agréeing vniuersally vpon the Reall presence might be ignorant of considering that some late scholemen also after the Church had declared for transubstantiation of the bread thought notwithstanding that they might holde some part of the breads substance to remayne either the matter as it doth in all substantiall transmutations of nature or els the substantiall forme vntill this last Councel at Trent declared therfore further that the Church meaneth by Transubstantiation the turning of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body and the whole substance of the wine into the substaÌ„ce of the bloud of Christ Sess 13. ca. 4. But because I there saide that your Apostasie hath no patron at all among the old Doctors in no article so inexcusable it is both of you and of your folowers and that remembring well at the same time this place of Theodoret you shall heare what I can say thereunto although the Lutherans might better alleage it then you First the Catholike asketh Mystica Symbola quae deo a dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur quorumnam dicis esse Symbola The mysticall likenesses which Gods Pristes do offer to God that is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine Whose likenesses be they The Eutychian Heretike answereth The likenesses of the bodie and bloud of our Lord in their owne formes Thereupon the Catholike inferreth Ergo our Lords bodie in his owne forme is yet also a true bodie and not turned into the nature of Diuinitie though filled with Diuine glorie Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar archetypum for an image must haue a paterne that is The Heretike there thinketh that the example of these misteries maketh rather for him and saieth Nay rather As these likenesses of our Lordes body and bloud Alia quidem sunt are one thing before the Priestes Inuocation to wit bread and wine but after the Inuocation are turned and be made other things to wit Christes bodie and Christes bloud So also our Lordes body after his assumption is turned into the diuine substance being therefore extant no more in his owne forme The Catholike answereth saying Nay you are caught in your owne nette Neque enim signa c. For the mysticall signes do not after consecration depart to sense as you teach of Christes body after his ascention from their nature For they abide to sense in their former substance and figure and forme and may be seene and felt as before IntelliguÌ„tur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur But to vnderstanding though not to sense and to faith they be the things which they are made adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur and they be adored by inclination and prostration as we heard afore out of S. Augustine because Fulke sayth here Not by any knocking or kneeling as being in deede the things which they are beleued Thus it is in the Mysteries béeing liknesses or an image Therefore the veritie in like maner saith he that is our Lords body in heauen habet priorem quidem formam c. Hath pardie the former forme and figure and circumscription and to say all at once the bodies substance though it be after the Resurrection made immortall and incorruptible and sitting at Gods right hande and adored of all creatures Meaning as you sée by substance of the bread and substance of the body all that is externall as figure forme circumscription c. Which we in Englishe do by a like
places Nowe what maketh all this for Fulke vnlesse he thinke he hath any vauntage in his owne false translation of Acta turning it Decrees Yea doth it not make against him most inuincibly as all the rest also that S. Augustine hath written against the Donatistes for his Church ours that is for the Church beginning at Hierusalem and thence spreding ouer all Nations to the very last time euen in the same maner altogether as it had done to S. Augustines time iij About certaine Traditions Vpon this question of Onely Scripture I haue stood long because Onely Scripture Onely faith are with the Protestantes all in all howbeit they haue neither Scripture nor Faith Now to dispatche other questions very briefly agaynst certayne Traditions Fulke alleageth saying Beatus Rhenanus a Papist and a great Antiquarie affirmeth that by the Canons of the Nicene Councell and other Councels which he hath seene in Libraries those oblations pro Natalitijs with other superstitions that Tertullian fathereth vpon Tradition of the Apostles were abrogated As touching oblations pro Natalitijs I haue answered in the sixt Chapter Cap. 6. par 1. v. But as for abrogation of any other Traditions Rhenanus hath neuer a word iiij About the mariage of Votaries For the mariage of such as haue vowed virginitie Ar. 45. Pur. 22.23 you alleage one place of Epiphanius thrise another of S. Hieromes twise and all about a matter that we hold euen as they did Thus you saye Epiphanius Hpiph li. 2 Haer. 61. although he count it an offence to marrie after their vowe therein he is with vs you know yet he saith speaking of such as secretly liue in fornication sub specie solitudinis aut continentiae vnder the colour of vowed singlenes or continencie It is better to marrie then to burne that first is not in Epiphanius Melius est itaque vnum peccatum habere non plura It is better to haue one sinne rather then many It is better for him that is fallen from his course wherein he beganne to runne for the Crowne of Virginitie openly to take a wyfe according to the lawe a virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere and a long time to repent to do penaunce for breaking that vowe of his virginitie and so hauing done his full penaunce to be brought agayne into the Churche out of the which he was caste as an excommunicate person for breaking his vow as one that hath done amisse as one that is fallen and broken and hauing neede to be bound rather then to be wounded dayly with priuie dartes of that wickednesse whiche the diuell putteth into him So knoweth the Church to preach Haec sunt sanationis medicamenta These are the medicines of healing Whereof you gather and say that Epiphanius calleth marriage of suche men an holsome medicine contrarie to that you confesse your selfe that he calleth it a sinne for so doth the Apostles Tradition saith he vnlesse perhaps you thinke Sinne to be an holsome medicine No syr the holsome medicins are his long penance and his reconcilement to the Church againe But at the least say you Epiphanius alloweth marriage in them whereas the Popish Church did separate them from their wiues in queene Maries time After a solemne vow which is made but only two ways by taking holy orders by professing some common approued rule of Religion to marrie is * Chry. ep 6 ad Theod. MonachuÌ„ lapsum Basil lib. de virginitate no mariage and therevpon it is that no Doctor can be alleaged which alloweth it for mariage if Priests or such professed Monkes and Nunnes do marrie But the sole vow of virginitie and of widowhood is none of those two and therfore but a simple vow and therefore to marrie after it although it be a great mortall sinne yet the mariage holdeth So saith Epiphanius and so say we as some widowes in England hauing taken the mantle and the ring and marrying afterwards can beare vs witnesse whose mariage we haue allowed of though they may not vse it so fréely without iust dispensation as other maried Folke and as their husbandes may because of their vow and cured them by penance reconciliation altogether as Epiphanius here witnesseth of the Church in his time Hie. ad Demetriad tom 1. So is it likewise of the simple vow of virginitie that S. Hierome speaketh saying The name of certayne virgins which behaue them selues not well doth slaunder the holy purpose of virgins and the glory of the heauenly and angelike familie To whoÌ„ must be playnly said vt aut nubant that either they marrie if they can not conteine or els conteine suing to God to giue them strength if they will not marrie We say the same to the same and generally to all others which of two sinnes wil nedes commit one counsayling them rather to commit the lesser then the greater As for example to say that they will come to your schismatical and Heretical seruice when the Commissioners require no more rather then to come vnto it in déede not omitting to tell them withal that they should neither so much as say they wil come because that also is a sinne and a mortall sinne as Epiphanius told those virgins that their mariage also is sinne v. About the Real presence and Transubstantiation About the blessed viuificall Sacrament of the Altar you alleage one Doctor against the Real presence and thrée others agaynst Transubstantiation Pur. 326. It was not the beleefe of S. Augustine nor of any other in that time you say that the Sacrament is the naturall body and bloud of Christ As though it were the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church Vnlesse you finde more then these two his naturall body and his mysticall body Or as though it were not his naturall body which was the morow after his Supper to dye for vs and his naturall bloud which was to be shedde for vs. When will you euer admit any text for plaine and euident Scripture standing so obstinately against these most cléere woords of Christ This is my Body that is geuen and broken for you Luc. 22.1 Cor 11. This is my bloud Mat. 26. Mar. 14. that is shedde for you and for many Luc. 22. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. And what a grosse blindnes is this considering the infinit difference betwene bread and Christ to thinke that being in S. Augustines time taken for bread it could afterward in all Christendome be taken for Christ himselfe and that without all contradiction wheras also at this time you the Sacramentaries could not chaunge the doctrine of it from Christ to bread but heauen and earth cryeth out against you for it not the Catholikes alone but also the Lutherans But S. Augustine forsooth saith Pur. 3â—8 Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. I will recite the whole circumstance that the world may sée your dealing Aug. in Ps 98. I finde
Virgine was breaking of her vow and the fall of those men was denying of Christ in persecution but they make not against Pardons no neither of those most heinous sinnes vnlesse you thinke that the Churches binding is preiudicial to her lowsing both being giuen her of Christ For what els doth S. Ambrose there but bind that virgine as béeing her Bishop to do penance al her life Inhaere poenitentiae vsque ad extremam vitae c. Sticke to penance euen to the end of thy life and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day for he deceiueth thee that so promiseth thee For thou that hast in special sinned against the Lord because she was his vowed spouse it is meete that of him onely thou looke for remedie in day of Iudgement So that all her life he bindeth her to penance bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hands The Emperour Theodosius he bound also Theo. hist li. 5. ca. 17. though indefinitely but after eight monethes penance loused him again with a pardon Who séeth not that all this maketh playnely for pardons and not against them Likewise S. Cyprian in that Sermon and in twenty Epistles at the least maketh playnly for Pardons in that he doth no more but reproue them that be giuen partly of such as had not authoritie to louse at least those deniers as of Lay martyrs of méere Priestes partly of suche as had authoritie but without cause without moderation and to vnpenitent persons partly moste of al both these defects concurring But otherwise although being Primate of all Affrike he reprehended a certaine Bishop for geuing pacem peace to a certaine Priest Cyp. ep 59 before he had done poenitentiam plenam full penance which manifestly was a Pardon contra decretum de Lapsis contrarie to the Councels decrée touching such deniers Pacem tamen quomodocunque à Sacerdote dei c. Yet saith he being once giuen by a Bishop the Priest of God in what maner soeuer we will not reuoke it and therefore we permit Victor to enioy the leaue to communicate which hath bene graunted him NotwithstaÌ„ding that to those Impenitents trusting also but in lay mens pardons he crieth as you alleage Nemo se fallat c. Let no man deceiue him selfe Cyp. sermo de Lapsis let no man beguile him selfe onely our Lord can giue mercy onely he can graunt pardon to sinnes as beeing coÌ„mitted agaynst him Homo Deo esse non potest maior nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua seruns potest quod in dominum delicto grauiore commissum est ne adhuc lapso hoc accedat ad crimen si nesciat esse praedictum Iere. 17. maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine Man can not be greater then God to louse the impenitent whom God bindeth neither can the seruaunt who hath no commission remit in part or forgeue in the whole with his indulgence that which by so great a fault was committed against the Lord least furthermore to the fallen person be added this cryme also if he be ignoraunt that it was forespoken Cursed is the man that hath his trust in man Mat. 10. Dominus orandus est Dominus nostra satisfactione placandus qui negantem negare se dixit Our Lorde must be prayed vnto our Lorde must by our satisfaction be pacified who hath saide that he will denie his denier His seconde Epistle is to those Martyrs in prison instructing them not to giue pardons them selues nor to appoynt the Bishops so or so to pardon him and his and him and his but to make their suite for those whose Poenitentia est Satisfactioni proxima penaunce is very nighe to satisfaction that is almost all fulfilled and to remitte the matter to the Bishoppes power Note the antiquitie of pardons sicut in praeteritum semper sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est As in time past alwayes it was done vnder our predecessors And yet Epistle 54. the Councell giueth a plenarie to all the Deniers at once that were doing their penaunce because of another persecution at hande Epistle 52. he sheweth Clerus Romanus Sede vacante appoynted that the like pardon should be geuen to euery one in extreme sicknes But I forget my selfe to alleage so much béeing here onely to answere vij Of Purgatorie This Chapter is growen to such length and yet is Purgatorie behinde But the gentle Reader will consider I trust howe lightly any beast may trouble the pure water but that it is not so soone cleared agayne not doubting also but the varietie passeth away his wearinesse As I am likewise studious of method to put all in conuenient order for the same cause And the order that in this part I thinke good to follow is to speake first of the Churches practise and then of particular Doctors Of the Canonicall memento of Oblations and of Sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church First then to proue that for a certayne space after the Apostles there was no praying for the dead at least in some Churches this Companion reasoneth ab authoritate negatiuâ— negatiuely of the authoritie of Iustinus Martyr and of Tertullian to which I must ioyne Origen Epiphanius and a Councell of Spayne though him selfe vnmindfull in one place what he saith in another playnly 〈…〉 Puâ— â— affirmeth that such an argument euen of all mens authoritie is false Therefore thus he saith Seeing it is certayne by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr that there was no mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lords Supper 〈…〉 for more then an hundred yeres after Christ we must not beleeue Chrysostome without Scripture affirming that it was ordeined so by the Apostles Wel then Chrysostome your elder ones affirmeth it as more at large you confessed the same in the 3. and 7. Chapters but you and certain of the contrarie by his elder Iustinus What be Iustinus his words Where you recite them you say agayne Pur. 259. By which it is manifest that in those first and purer days there was â—o mention at all of Sacrifice for the dead But no word so in Iustinus Yea in reporting there the order of the 〈◊〉 â—ist he saith expresly that the Bishop is long about it Iust Apol. 2. in fine you also after he is comâ—â—o Consecration And when he hath ended Those prayers and the Consecration all do answerâ— Amen as also at this day we sée at the later Eleuation where the Consecration is concluded In that long space you can find no time for memento domine defunctorum But certayne it is and manifest say you that there was none and that Chrysostome and al his felowes must not be beleued You might as wel say that in S. Augustines time also there was no mention of the dead Aug. epist 59. q. 5. because he also reporteth sometimes the summe of the Canon without naming the dead yea that your owne
vnproperly because he also saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing Sacrifice Rom. 12. To knowe what is properly or vnproperly called this or that you should sée to the natures of the things in them selues And then séeing in Christes death open separation of his body from his bloud and in Consecration mysticall separation of them because the words do worke that which they signifie you should say in both those Christes body to be properly a Sacrifice as I told you likewise before cap. 6. pag. 47. but in perpetuall virginitie and other mortification because there is no such separation of our substantial partes but onely of our affections from vs they be called Sacrifices not properly but onely by a metaphore and similitude Well then what obiections haue you now against this Priesthood and Sacrifice of the Fathers and ours Either that it is none at all or that it is not a Sacrifice in Christes body as S. Augustine said First Out of doubt Pur. 294.295 if the bringing foorth of bread and wine had bene anye thing parteining to the Priesthood of Melchisedech the Apostle Heb. 7. would not haue omitted to haue compared it with Christ But the Apostle comparing Melchisedech with Christe in all thinges in whiche he was comparable neuer teacheth it as any part of his Priesthood If it were no part of his Priesthood what was it then It is playne by the text that Melchisedech beeing both a king and a Priest as a king liberally enterteined Abraham and his armie and as a Priest blessed him The text in our vulgar Latine translation is this Proferens panem vinum erat enim Sacerdos Dei Altissimi In your vulgar English translation this He brought foorth bread wine For he was the Priest of the most highest God And in the Hebrew the poynting declareth that also the Rabbins thēselues take it in the same sort as also the very words do signifie specially standing in such order And all our Fathers do agrée Cyp. ep 63. S. Cyprian shall suffice for all who declareth the order of Melchisedech De sacrificio illo venire to come of that Sacrifice not of euery Sacrifice but of that Sacrifice And more distinctly to descende of these thrée thinges quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit that he was not a common Priest but the Priest of the highest God as S. Iohn Baptists preeminence among al the Prophets is signified by this word Propheta altissimi the prophet of the highest Luc. 1. quod panē vinū obtulit hauing said afore protulit which two you thinke cannot stand together that he offered not as other Priests but bread and wine Quod Abraham benedixit that he blessed not euery body but Abraham the father of al the faithfull of Christ And in déede who is so blinde not to sée the corresspondence in Christ but you onely that are not Abrahams children We Catholikes his children in faith and souldiers in confession of the same do sée playnly before our eyes our true Melchisedech as first by him selfe at his last Supper so stil by his ministers to bring forth bread and wine and thereof as our High Priest to offer for vs this most acceptable Sacrifice and as our king of kings who with so few loaues fed many thousands to prepare for vs this most Royal feast which we can neuer inough admire Mat. 14. 15. so singularly by this blessing both God and vs that the sacrifice and feast it selfe is named Benedictio and Eucharistia Blessing and Thankesgiuing Which S. Cyprian doth there prosecute very swéetely saying For who is more the Priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ who offered Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the same against those Aquarij who offered water in the Chalice and not wine which Melchisedeth had offered that is bread and wine suum corpus sanguinem his owne body perdie and bloud Also that blessing going afore about Abraham ad nostrum populum pertinebat belonged to our people saith he as a Bishop minister of the true Melchisedech To * The end of bringing foorth vvas to blesse as also S. Augustine said aboue the end therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might by Melchisedech the Priest be duely celebrated there goeth afore an Image of Christes sacrifice an image I say consisting in bread and wine c. Where is now your argumēt ab authoritate Heb. 7. negatiuè with your out of doubt contrarie to your owne Logike here cap. 8. pag. 134. For besides all this I aske you whether Melchisedeth were a Priest without all sacrifice at all If you say yea your Diuinity is contrary to Heb. 8. For euery high Priest is ordeined to offer giftes and sacrifices Note Wherefore it is necessary hunc habere aliquid quod offerat this Priest also to haue somwhat to offer If you say he had some sacrifice tell vs I pray you how he was comparable to Christ in his Priesthood vnlesse he were also in his Sacrifice considering that his Priesthood consisted in his Sacrifice And so you sée that he was comparable to Christ in some thing to wit in his Sacrifice supposing also that it was not the sacrifice of bread wine in which the Apostle compareth them not What a blindnes is this in you not to sée Melchisedech in his bread and wine so expresly mentioned to be comparable vnto Christ whereas by the Apostle also the very omitting of his father and mother and genealogie is in Genesis a shadowing of Christ séeing also bread and wine so notably vsed in the world by the institution of Christ Such is either your ignorance in the Scriptures or also peruersenes against your owne knowledge Your second argument may be where you take on like Caiphas Mat. 26. and say it is a blasphemie Pur. 298.299 c. for the Fathers and vs to say that we haue the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech confirmed vnto vs by oth Psal 109. For then you saye we must be Christ him selfe with his eternall diuinitie and euerlasting natiuitie and sitting on the right hand Why syr doth not the Scripture likewise say that there is one Baptizer Ioan. 1. Mat. 3. Hic est qui baptisat and he such a one as vpon whom the holy Ghost cōmeth and abideth and to whom the Father saith This is my naturall sonne Must we then be said to blaspheme VVhat a doctor Fulke is and take al that to our selues if we say that we are baptizers You are a great Doctor forsooth so to argue No syr we are baptizers and priests Aug. de ci li. 17. c. 17. but as his ministers we offer Sub Sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech Vnder Christ the Priest saith S. Augustine and therfore he singulerly is the one baptizer and the one priest So were not all the rest in the time of the olde Testament the ministers of
of all the Saintes as you may also sée in the Councell of Trent Another poynt of your great skil is where to supply D. Allens lacke Pur. 12. you bring forsooth the right definition or description of an Heretike and say that an Heretike is a man in the Church c. Wherof what pretie conclusions do folow you may consider as because Papistes be Heretikes with you Ministerlike conclusions of Fulke therefore they be in the Church item Anabaptistes Seruetians c. and of old the Arrians Pelagians c. againe on the contrarie side because these are not nor were not by you in the Church therefore they be not Heretikes It foloweth in your definition That obstinatly mainteineth an opinion contrarie to the doctrine of the Scriptures And then you adde Which if any of vs can be proued to doe then let vs not be spared but condemned for Heretikes We say to you the same of any of vs also But you should haue defined also who is obstinate You bring no Scripture against vs but we answere it clearely much lesse do you proue vs to be obstinate But we bring playne Scriptures against you to proue that also the doctrine of the Apostles Traditions is the doctrine of the Scriptures with very many particular pointes of controuersie expresly against you as namely that neither the Church of Christ should euer flye out of sight much lesse any thing neare the yere 607. nor Antichrist reigne so long as from that time nor the day of Iudgement to be so long after the cōming of Antichrist Againe for the Real presence This is my body and so forth And if you also goe about to answere some of our Scriptures it is no otherwise then the Arrians Pelagians c. did in old time who notwithstanding were obstinate against the truth because they yéelded not neither when the Church had giuen her sentence So do we proue you to be obstinate much more then any because you neither yéeld after sentence and also do hold that the Church hath no such authoritie to end contentions Your ignorance in so wondering at D. Allen for saying that a Christian Scholer should first beléeue and after séeke for vnderstanding I noted before cap. 10. Dem. 34. Of the like ignorance it is where you wonder to heare that the Sacrifice of the Masse is a likenesse of the Sacrifice of Christes death vpon the Crosse and say Pur. 200. that it is contrarie to the whole a See here cap. 10. Dem. 24. scope of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that there should be now any shadowes or resemblances when the body and substance it selfe is come As though we had now no Sacramentes at all Do you not know that all Sacramentes be liknesses of other things as S. Augustine whom your selfe somewhere alleage saith Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. Aug. ep 23. Pur. 292. Sup. de 24. For if Sacramentes had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whose Sacramentes they be they should not at al be Sacraments And so you may remember that S. Paule him selfe will haue Baptisme to be a likenes or similitude of Christes death Rom. 6. buriall and resurrection As againe S. Augustine in the foresayd place noteth that it is truely sayed Christum immolari quotidie in Sacramento Christ to be sacrificed euery day in the Sacrament although he were but once sacrificed in seipso in him selfe that is in his owne visible and not sacramentall forme because of the likenes in the Sacrament to that immolation vpon the Crosse For there was visible seperation of his Body and Bloud the one from the other Here is mysticall or sacramentall seperation of the same as the sacramentall wordes doe signifie And therefore this seperation is but like to that if we attende the maner of both and yet it is the very same seperation if we attend the thinges that were and are seperated Which D. Allen vttered very aptly in these few wordes It is the selfe same in another maner Pur. 198.201 Whereunto you say that Euery boye in Oxford can tell him that by Logicke like is not the same An high point D. Allen knew it not How then did he say in another maner Did he not thereby geue you the meaning of that Logicall Principle to wit that like is not the same with the same maner But otherwise what boye hath not heard it sayd of one and the same man being chaunged by age sicknes apparell shauing c. He is like or vnlike him selfe Against so playne a declaration you could not replye and yet you must néedes say something but yet that which neither boy nor man nor your selfe can vnderstand This it is to say It is the selfe same in another maner will not helpe so long as the same respect remaineth Which same respect I pray you for I am not so quicke to vnderstand him who vnderstandeth not him selfe For who can imagine that the very same respect remaineth when the same maner doth not remayne Pur. 20.21 Againe where you attribute that to diuorsement which the Scripture in many places both a Mat. 5. Mar. 10. Luc. 16. ◠Cor. 7. deny to diuorsement and doth b Rom. 7. attribute only to death to wit to make her no wife that was a wife there you vtter your great skill in many matters As in saying that such mariage after diuorsement is dispensed withall by the Pope Item that the Popes Canon Law hath farre many more causes of diuorsement then for adulterie which only Christ alloweth and we Mat. 5. quoth you As though also the Canon Law allow not that onely as a cause of perpetuall diuorse in such sort that if the Adulterer become afterwardes neuer so chast yet the innocent cannot be compelled to receaue him againe But otherwise if the mans furie be such that the wife in his house is in continuall feare daunger of her life doe not you also allow her to dwell away from him vntill such time as his amendment doe appeare sufficiently Item you speake there as though Moyses iudiciall Law ought to be still obserued Leu. 20. We wish that adulterers were punished as God commaunded in his Law it followeth and then the other question of Mariages were soone answered As though the man were punished by death if he sinned against his wife with a single woman If not how then is the question of his wiues Mariage with another resolued by his punishment Such is your skill in the Law I note here your ignorance but I mislike not your moderation in saying we wish Why then doe I charge you with such an opinion of that Law For this that you there charge the Catholikes to allow dispensation for such persons to marrie as the Law of God and nature abhorreth What Law of God doe you meane but Leui. 18 Doe you thinke then that Law to binde Christians and that so straightly as neyther to