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
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
workes Marke also the reason why we are not saued by any workes done by man namely least any shoulde boast For boasting of man is not excluded so long as any workes that he doth may be the cause of his saluation For if Abraham be iustified by workes hee hath whereof to boast but not with God Rom. 4. where is then boasting It is excluded By what lawe of works No but by the lawe of faith Wherefore not onely the workes done before baptisme but all other are excluded from iustification that no man should boast as the Pharisee but that all glory of our saluation might be ascribed wholy to God by Iesus Christ. You therefore building saluation vpon good workes done after baptisme doe manifestly builde vpon another foundation then the onely true foundation Iesus Christ and therefore your errors notwithstanding you cannot as the olde fathers erring in small matters be yet the church of God What Flaccius Illyricus an intemperate man iudged of S. Hierom I haue not to aunswere for him CAP. VI. An aunswere first to all the foresaide errors wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first 600. yeares and afterwarde likeâ—ise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these lateâ— yeares Hetherto we had nothing in a manner but a rehersall of such matters as hee affirmeth to be confessed by me nowe he promiseth to proue that notwithstanding any thing I obiecte the Church hath neuer erred and moreouer that it can neuer erre How well he performeth his promise we shall see by considering his aunsweres and arguments Fulkes zeale in aunswering for Caluin and others being in deede of his Church First he chargeth me to holde that our Church at this present doth not erre and that I neuer say so much as plainely that it may erre In deede I am throughly perswaded that our Church in matters necessary to saluation doth not erre But when I say plainely that not onely euery particular Church but euen the whole Catholike Church on earth of euery age may erre in matters not necessarie to saluation what an impudent creature is this to affirme that I neuer say plainely that our Church may erre He that saith plainly euery man â—â— a lyer doth he not say plainely that both Fulke and Bristowe are lyers But my zeale for Caluin is wonderfull great in his opinion for I say he erreth not but the fathers and the whole Church haue erred A man were as good to reason with a poste as with such a sensles Papist I say Caluin erreth not in such pointes as hee is slaundered of by Allen therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and crie out as loude as I can euery man erreth and yet in Bristowes eares I say Caluin erreth not The like zeale I shewe for Maister Iewel whose learned labours I commende to the iudgement of the world And yet he hath quit himselfe so well saith Bristowe that the very reading of his aunswere hath turned many earnest Protestants into earnest Catholikes as both by the numbers and by the noblenesse of the persons is notoriously knowne I thinke the number and the nobilitie of the conuerts is all alike There runneth such a tale of Copley the great barron of Haie created by the Spanish I wot not howe Lorde of the Maze an auncient rotten house in Southwarke that he shoulde be so conuerted if some popish treason discouered caused him not to faine such a souden and straunge conuersion But yet Bristowe cannot abide that I should exhort English papists to reade that booke and pray to God for direction in the trueth No sir saith he that is not the way to trueth no more then to swallowe poyson and pray is the way to get or keepe health of bodie Alas poore Bristowe hast thou so soone forgot that which thou saidst immediatly before that Iewels booke is such a soueraigne antidote that hath expelled the poyson of Protestants from so many and so noble personages and made them so earnest Catholikes that thou nowe wouldest haue them fly from it as from a poyson We see thy wittie pollicie it is not the way to trueth thou sayest to reade our aunsweres but it is the way to continue meÌ„ in error to suffer them to see nothing but that you say your selues A sure way to winne credit but yet with fooles onely For hee that dare not let his aduersaries aunswere bee seene sheweth plainely that hee dare not abide the tryall but requireth all men to beleeue him vppon his bare worde Where you say I should rather exhort men to reade the auncient writers I aunswere that is needelesse for such whom I exhort to reade maister Iewels replie namely such as cannot wade well out of these controuersies without such conference as they may see betweene maister Harding and maister Iewell The first part concerning the errors that he layd ap 3. par 2. both to the fathers and to vs and first of the crosse and images First where I charge them that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentinians that the reader may wonder at my audacitie he saith Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure nor signe nor vse of the crosse but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones and in them two or 3. Christes and one of the Christs they called Crux c. what say you Bristowe speake they not a worde either of the figure signe or vse of the crosse I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus where he telleth that they call the Zodiak whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen an image of the crosse And when they both tell you that the crosse among the Valentinians had a double vse of confirmation and separation speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse No say you they inuented 30 gods called Aeones and among them diuerse Christs wherof the crosse was one It is a shame to lye on the diuell The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes but emissions of the first great inuisible infinite Acone Neither was the crosse any of those 30. Aeones ages or worldes For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus before he cometh to the crosse videlicet 8. of the first emission tenne of the seconde and twelue of the thirde Neither did they call the crosse Christ but the vertue of Christ confirmatiue separatiue such as healed the woman of the bloudie issue Vnto which they gaue diuerse names calling it in a manner as you papists doe the redeemer the sauior the sanctifier the apoynter of the bounds the bringer vnto further matters the most perfect ende or termination c. But all this while you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse but of a fained mysterie or imagination Then you must vnderstand that of these imagined mysteries they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in
gappe be shutt from any heresie to 〈…〉 a st it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles as the Va 〈…〉 tinians and other heretikes haue done and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs To this obiection I aunswere that their writings 〈◊〉 the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. 〈…〉 stowe replyeth So were they not to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth 〈…〉 tly by writing I reioyne that wee haue no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes but by their writing wee neuer hearde 〈◊〉 deliuer any thing by word of mouth but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contein the summe of their preachings Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selues about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not conteined in the Scriptures Bristowe 〈…〉 nswereth first their doubts are not of the traditions 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions which is as much as I shewed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317. The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome where he sayeth first that small helpe can be procured for the dead afterwarde he sayeth the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying â—or them Bristowe aunswereth is none at all For in 〈…〉 e first place he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their soules by their riches that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured 〈…〉 em selues because a mans owne workes are also meritorious 〈◊〉 euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori 〈…〉 vnto him at all no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine 〈…〉 his owne nothing like But how a man 's owne workes 〈…〉 his friendes workes may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all he bringeth no proofe 〈◊〉 all And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos vnto those riche men so dying onely what reasoâ— is there why orantes pro istis should not be referred vnto them also But seeing the memory which he saiâ—â— was decreede of the Apostles was generall for all theâ— that departed in faith why should not that much profite comming thereby pertaine to them of whoâ—â— he sayde before that small helpe they could haue Likewise that I added further of the Cathecumeni whâ—â— Chrysostome iudged of helping them Bristowe pas 〈…〉 ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it 3 Against the Churches authoritie I saye plainly the practise and authoritie of the church without the worde of God reuealed in the scriptureâ— is no rule of trueth Where I commende Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter but seeing in the thirde Chapter he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter thither also will I referre him for answere Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi that the order of the châ—â—ches prayer saith Bristowe is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue because Fulke could not make his florish with that ende forwarde he turneth the staffe as though S. Augustine D. Allen had sayed that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing So sayeth S. Augustine saith Bristowe in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians sayeth Allen but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures 〈…〉 t faith should teach vs to praye rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to beleeue For howe shall they call vppon 〈◊〉 sayeth the Apostle in whome they haue not belee 〈…〉 d Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation 〈…〉 weene the cause and the effectes the one argueth 〈…〉 oueth the other For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye so the prayer is an argument of the faith accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceiued But true faith com 〈…〉 th onely by hearing the worde of God therefore 〈…〉 e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of 〈…〉 d and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the worde of God After this he sayeth I 〈◊〉 as bolde to except against the practise commen 〈…〉 d euen in the canonicall scripture because I allowe 〈…〉 t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the 〈…〉 phane and lying booke of the Machabees I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con 〈…〉 nce Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 Because heretikes make doubt of the Church this heretike 〈◊〉 that no Christian leane vnto it Yes verily I will haue 〈◊〉 men that know the Church leane to the Church de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the trueth and of the Church I saye only scripture i◠〈◊〉 staye of their conscience to trye the trueth and the Church both seing both heretikes Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures sayeth he either all or some peece as you doe of the â—achabees I aunswere if any denye all Scriptures 〈…〉 ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks 〈…〉 th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of 〈…〉 riptures but by other inducements such as were 〈…〉 d to the Paganes Against those heretikes that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures wee are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receiue as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of 〈…〉 oses because they receiued none other Scripture For the book of Macha bees we doubt not but are certaine it is a prophane booke as I haue shewed by many arguments neuer receiued in the primitiue Church fâ—â— 400. yeares after Christ. Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churcheâ— but so that they allow no consent or submission but 〈◊〉 the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods wordâ— Bristow saith with that but so we wil consent the trueâ—â— to Iacke strawe Verily to consent vnto Iacke straâ—â— in truth I take it to be none absurditie but I speake not onely of consent but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie 〈◊〉 reuerence As for the 4.
toward that 〈◊〉 of the world must be heated whot because the soules 〈◊〉 tary there the shorter time With such inuentions 〈◊〉 may answere any question But I seeke a resolution 〈◊〉 of the word of God or good reason agreeable thereto To the 2. question you answere it is not 〈◊〉 to Gods mercie to remit such punishment at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quest of his glorious Saintes as he nowe doeth â—or 〈◊〉 Churches prayers But seeing the Saintes know not 〈◊〉 sodennes of that moment howe shall they pray for 〈◊〉 discharge of them that deserue to goe to purgatorie 〈◊〉 they pray for it continually why pray they not as 〈◊〉 to discharge all other men from purgatory as those th 〈…〉 shal remaine aliue at the comming of Christe And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercie it is not the matter in question but howe it may stand with 〈◊〉 iustice which as you holde requireth satisfaction by temporall punishment For otherwise we know it standeth both with his iustice and his mercie that they whiche obteine forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ should immediately after their death be receiued into the fellowshippe of them that are likewise made righteous by him Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moued but not answered and yet the place is corrupted and inforced as Ludovicus Vives confesseth In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth against them which helde that God after the iudgement would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints In the 27. Chapter which he also quoteth there is nothing to the question Whether faith hope and Gods will may stand with Purgatorie This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians to mourne for the deade much more it is against the hope and faith of Christians to pray for them For by our prayer we suppose them 〈…〉 e in miserie whom the worde of God doeth testifie 〈…〉 e in happinesse to be at rest to be with Christ. Ioh. Apoc. 14. Bristow answereth those Scriptures proue that they be straightway in happinesse c. as he 〈◊〉 shewed and I haue shewed the contrary that they â—roue it notwithstanding all his impudent cauilati 〈…〉 Secondly he saith it is not against hope to mourne 〈◊〉 to mourne as the Gentiles which knowe not the 〈…〉 rrection Neither do I say that all mourning is a 〈…〉 st hope but such mourning as supposeth them to 〈…〉 n miserie or to be lost as the Papistes Paganes 〈◊〉 Our mourning for the delay of the kingdome God as he vnderstandeth it for the generall resurre 〈…〉 n is for our present miserie and therefore lawfull 〈…〉 e ioyned with hope But mourning for the dead whose happinesse the Scripture assureth vs is a 〈…〉 nst faith therefore contrary to hope 〈…〉 nother argument in the same place is All places 〈…〉 cripture that forbidde prayers without faith for 〈…〉 de prayers for the deade For faith is an assurance 〈◊〉 of the worde of God c. This argument saith Bristow supposeth that the 〈…〉 de of God is only Scripture Yea verily it suppo 〈…〉 that only Scripture is the warrant of Gods worde we haue before mainteined and also answered to 〈◊〉 Apocryphall Booke of the Machabees A third argument is Pur. 281. We learne out of Gods 〈…〉 rde that whatsoeuer we pray for according to his 〈…〉 ll we shall obteine 1. Iohn 5. Prayers for the dead 〈◊〉 not according to the will of God and therefore they 〈◊〉 not heard at al. Bristow denieth the minor which he 〈…〉 th I haue not proued Yes verily I proue it because the 〈…〉 dgement followeth immediately after death and in 〈…〉 dgement God wil heare no prayers And therefore 〈…〉 istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sinne not 〈…〉 to death and shameful addition Let him after his death 〈…〉 quest of Christ and life shal be giuen vnto him is false and 〈…〉 surde although he saith he hath giuen the plaine smoth 〈…〉 se of the whole place which is to be vnderstoode of men liuing and not of the dead A smooth expos 〈…〉 If one see his brother sinne he must pray for him a 〈…〉 his death Againe he vrgeth the present temps who 〈◊〉 knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not to death 〈◊〉 one saith Bristowe that liued in schisme but yet 〈◊〉 reconciled before he died O monstrous and more th 〈…〉 palpable blindenesse be these verbes liued reconc 〈…〉 dyed of the present or preterperfect temps which t 〈…〉 deniest the Apostle to haue vsed But omit the te 〈…〉 which he calleth him a brother which liueth in schis 〈…〉 How much more soundly may I reason vpon the present temps Saint Iohn biddeth vs pray for a brother 〈…〉 ning but a brother sinning is onely liuing therefore S. Iohn biddeth vs pray only for a brother liuing For they that are in Purgarorie neither deserue nor sinne by your owne confession As for the sinne against the holy Ghost which we say is not to be prayed for at all he threateneth often to consute in the 12. Chapter In the meane time it is euident that Purgatorie for any thing that is hitherto applyed by Bristow remaineth confuted by sufficient argumentes and authoritie of the Scriptures The fourth parte concerning all other questions that he mentioneth and first of good workes in generall Iustification Free will Remitting the questions of the witnesses of Gods worde vnto fiue motives in the 10. Chapter where I alledge that good workes do not iustifie two places one of Saint Paul another of Esaie he holdeth the contrary that works do iustifie And first calling me a falsary because I recite not the very wordes of the Apostle which was not my purpose but to shew what we do affirme out of that texte of the Apostle he saith iustification by workes is not denied by that text of Saint Paule Rom. 3. We holde that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe for it is to be vnderstoode of workes going before Baptisme and not of workes following 〈…〉 aptisme because Saint Iames saith a man is iustified of â—orkes and not of faith onely To this I aunswere 〈…〉 aint Paul speaketh of iustification before God Saint 〈…〉 ames of iustification before men Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by loue Saint Iames of a bare know 〈…〉 edge a barren and dead faith a faith that is voide of good workes And that Saint Paule speaketh generally of all good workes it is manifest by this reason that he saith boa 〈…〉 ting is excluded not by the lawe of workes but by the 〈…〉 awe of faith what manner of exclusion were it to shut â—ut boasting for a moment while one is baptized and â—mmediately after receiue it againe by defending iustification by workes Againe he sayeth immediately after â—t is one God which shal iustifie circuÌ„cision which is of faith and vncircumcision through faith
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
And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers that defende such prayers confessed they had them not of the Scriptures Of certaine particular textes I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare that the text 1. Cor. 3. of him that shal be saued through fire proueth not Purgatorie affirming that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life Bristowe cauilling that he affirmeth not but speaketh doubtfully c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire But Augustines wordes are plaine Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apoâ—tolus talis debet intelligi vt ambo per eum transeant c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh ought to be vnderstoode such that both may passe thorough it that is both he that buildeth vpon this foundation Golde Siluer pretious stones and he also which buildeth Woode Strawe Stubble For when he had saide this he added The fire shal trie euerie mans work such as it is if any mans worke remaine that which he hath builded vpon he shall receiue rewarde But if any mans worke be burned he shall suffer losse but he himselfe shal be saued yet so as it were through fire The fire truely is the tentation of tribulation of which it is manifestly written in an other place The fornace proueth the potters vessels and tentation of tribulation iust men This fire in this present life worketh that which the Apostle saith c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe Againe he speaketh not at all against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire that it shall haue an end but against such as in his time did holde That they which forsake not the name of Christ and are baptised with his lauer in the Church and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie although they liue in neuer so great wickednes which they neither wash away by repenting nor redeemed with almes but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life shal be saued through fire although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long but yet not eternal fire But they which beleeue this yet are catholikes seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence For the holy scripture being consulted answereth another thing c. Enc. ad Laurentium C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire through which some should passe not all therfore against the popishe purgatorie although he denye not but such a thing may be yet it cannot be proued by this place nor by any other place of scripture as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. diuision of this chapter where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie I answered Allen apposing vs where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way is cast into hell from whence he shal neuer come I alledged for that sense Chrysostome Augustine Hierom Chromatius This is passing childish saith Bristow For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing But this in deede is passing impudence for Allens words in the same diuision after he hath posed Caluin Flaccus Luther Iewel about their interpretation of scriptures are these But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title is of that place Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow it is not true that all those doctors haue that sense which I affirme them to haue But he only saith it let their wordes be read Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true As in that saying Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing some haue expounded that he shall alwayes be punished some that hee shall not be alwayes punished Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true Mary sayth Bristow with as fine Rhetorike as strong Logike Thus it is true those he and he are not one he but he that shal be alwayes punished is he that to the end of the way that is this life agreeth not with his aduersarie whome he hath deadly iniuryed as saying to him fatue and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis which iâ— the prison of the damned He that shal not be alwayes punished is he whose iniury was but veniall as Racha And so both interpretations agree well not onely together but also with the text it selfe In deede this is a fine distinction of he and he but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way shal be cast into prison from whence he shall neuer come whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them there is but one prison from whence there is no deliuerance vntil the last farthing be payde which by those doctors exposition is neuer payde Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser the punishment is eternall without reconciliation or as Saint Luke sayeth diligence to be reconciled If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee goe and reconcile thy selfe sayeth Christe and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger or saying Racha and not onely of saying Fatue But as for that he which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him he is not at all committed to prison were his iniurie great or small So that which He soeuer commeth into prison there is no waye of escape vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged Secondly whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testimonie against vs. First about the booke of Machabees Where I sayde that Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD Bristowe replyeth as though all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures Fulk reioyneth that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes is not canonicall Where I take exception to the Councel of Carthage which numbreth this booke among
ouerthrowe Purgatorie For if it be true no man feeleth paine after this life but he that shall feele it eternally This laste conclusion although Bristowe confesse that Saint Ambrose him selfe sayeth it expressely in other places yet he asketh howe I can inferre it of the wordes of Saint Ambrose In ep ad Rom. Cap. 5. which I inferre not of his wordes but of Allens wordes citing the place of Ambrose as though the wordes were these And therefore Saint Ambrose saith that without delay the good poore man was carryed to rest and the wicked rich out of hand suffered torments THAT EVERY MAN saith he MAIE FEELE BEFORE THE DAIE OF IVDGEMENT WHAT HE MVST THEN LOOKE FOR. Bristowe leauing Allen as he doth commonly breechelesse sheweth the wordes of Ambrose to be otherwise as they are in deede Which I will rehearse somewhat more at large then Bristowe hath done Maxima pars mundi c. The greatest part of the worlde did not knowe that God should be their iudge and very fewe there were ouer whom death did not raigne But they ouer whom it raigned after this death which is called the first were receiued of the second deathe vnto paine and destruction to come but they ouer whome death raigned not because they haue not sinned in the similitude of the transgression of Adam were reserued vnder hope vnto the comming of our Sauiour in a free place as it is read of Abraham that although he was in the lower partes yet he was disseuered by a large distance so that there was a greate goulphe betwene the iust and the sinners how much more should there be to the godly and iust a câ—olinge to the sinners parching heate to the vngodly burning heate that it might not be hidden before the iudgement what euery one was worthy of This that Ambrose speaketh of the difference of the paines of the damned before Christ Bristowe by his accustomed interlacing would haue it seeme as though he spake of Purgatory for to sinners he addeth Catholiques to the impious or vngodly beretikes But he marketh not the conclusion that such heate as they felte after their death they should feele after the iudgement Againe Non latet he translateth might be partly knowne as though that which is not hidde is not manifestly and wholy knowne That I cited out of Saint Ambrose De bono mortis That death maketh no mans state worse but such as it findeth in euerie one such it reserueth to the iudgement to come Bristowe saith that Purgatorie altereth not the state of the euill to worse nor promoteth the state of the good to better but euery mans state is according to the merites of his life nor hee that is cleansed in Purgatory hath his merites multiplied or amplified but veniall sinnes and temporall debts taken away In deede if the state of a thing were nothing but that you will allowe it to be it were somewhat that you say but who will say that he which is in torments in Purgatory is in as good state as he that is in pleasure or ease of this life or that he which is discharged of such debts as you say must be paide in Purgatory is not in better state then he that now dieth and must be cast into the scalding house for such payment But that you may vnderstand he speaketh not of the death of the wicked which must abie for it as Bristow saith he addeth Ipsa quiete fouet it cherisheth with rest this cannot be of the wicked to whoÌ„ there is no rest but to the godly which al immediatly after death enioye rest notwithstanding they be not all alike good for of two sortes only Ambrose speaketh the wicked in torments after death because of their wicked life the godly in rest He speaketh therefore of the godly that death maketh not their state worse as he saide immediatly before Quia portus quidanâ— ect because death is a certaine hauen of them which being tosâ—ed in the great Sea of this life desire a harborow of faithfull rest To the counterfet auctority of Eusebius Emissenus that hath serued for a patch to peece so many Homilies like the Cukcowes song I will say no more then I said Pur. 143 The auctority of Bernard in this case I alwaies refused as a late writer not sufficient to testify of the old faith or errors either Whether Purgatory be only for veniall sinnes Standing vpon Augustines iudgement Enchirid. Cap 69. and other places I maintained that Purgatory could not be by his iudgment for greate offences which by penance are made small Against which Allen cited Augustine De vera falsa poenitentia that some sinnes are mortâ—l which by repentance are made venial c. which if they be not purged in this life require punishment aâ—ter this life c. And Bristow noteth theÌ„ more at large as though I had not vnderstood them or not read the booke The truth is I made none account of the counterâ—et book but noted the impudencie of Allen that would cite it against the certaine and knowen iudgement of Augustine Wheras this counterfeit booke if nothing else did bewray it in the 17. Chapiter rehearseth the opinion of Augustine by name and doth confute it But Bristowe passeth impudence it selfe while he alledgeth for the same with Allen Enchir. Ad laurent Cap. 71. Where Augustine saith of the Lordes praier in them that are regenerate Delet omnino c. That praier altogether putteth away those small and daily sinnes Also it putteth away euen those sinnes from which the life of the faithfull that hath bene wickedly ledde but by â—epenting beeing chaunged into better departeth Here he saith expresly that by repentaunce and praier great offences are cleane wiped away euen as small But how doth Bristowe proue hereof that mortall sinnes are become venialâ— Which also in the next worlde hee admitteth Cap. 6â— saith Bristowe But what doth he admitte that small sinnes may be purged peraduenture in the next life What Bâ—istowe haue you forgotten what you helde euen in this Chapter vnder the title whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie Fol. 250. that he speaketh not of purging sinnes but of purging worldly lawfull affections wiâ—h greefe of minde c. But admitte he speaketh of purging small sinnes in that place by Purgatorie fier as indeede he doth although before you denied the same how proue you our present controuersy that mortall sinnes forgiuen become veniall and may be purged in Purgatorie you say Cap. 70. Infanda crimina c. The hainouâ— offences if they be forgiuen Si conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remitiuntur He granteth they may be saued by Purgatorie fier after this life Good Lorde what will you be ashamed to affirme There is no such thing in that Chapter no nor in that which goeth before these wordes are not But after he hath declared his doubt of them that haue loued perishing goodes whether they may be saued by purgatorie fire after this
anie priest which had purposed continencie to marrie To that I saide of manie of the Cathedrall Churches in England builded for preachers and their wiues to dwell in Bristowe saith I haue wonne a whetstone as bigge as a mountaine but against the authoritie of the histories Ranulph Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens and other which I cited Bristow bringeth nothing but railing in filthie termes meete for the colledge of Cardinals life not for the holie estate of matrimonie Where I shewe the differing forme of the chauncels altars of the auncient Churches with crosse yles from the latter Popish erections Bristowe maketh me a souden proctor of theirs as though a chauncel and altar a crosse barre might not be named but by a Papist Yea he maketh me contrarie to my selfe for saying that Popish chauncels which are at the East end of Churches are but late additions and sanctifieth that we can abide no chauncels no crosse yles no length to the East c. of which things we make small account either to haue theÌ„ or to be without them But it is more materiall that he saith CoÌ„stantinus had tabernaculum crucis a tabernacle or moucable Church of the crosse wheras we can abide no crosse or roode in our Churches Euseb. in vit Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56 Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places shewe that in his warres he vsed to haue a tent or tabernacle as a Church for praier and ministration of the sacraments the first place onely calleth it tabernaculum crucis which might be of the forme but of any crosse that was in it there is no mention and much lesse of a rood which is a crosse with an image on it As for the crosse which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola saith was kept in the Church of Ierusalem worshipped by the Bishop and the people if it were true yet it proueth not creeping to the crosse on Good Friday as Bristow saith for there might be worshipping without creeping or Popish worshipping either Againe worshipping of that same crosse that Christ died on proueth not creeping to any idol of it Finally where he would proue out of Paulinus and Beda the multitude of altars in one Churche he laboureth in vaine Eusebius whome I cited is cleare both of the vnitie of the altar in his time and of the manner of standing which was not after the popish manner Of like wisedome it is that he will not allowe me to talke of chalices of wood and glasse because I say their vestiments be as good stuffe as their chalices which the olde Church knewe not Thereof he chargeth me not 〈◊〉 haue-read in Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra c. Holie cope wouen with golden threads which Constaâ—tinus gaue to the Bishop of Ierusalem that he might weare it when he did baptise Yes I haue read it but I spake of an elder Church then Constantines time in which such pompe was not vsed And yet that robe is lewdly translated of Bristowe a cope Although neither the Papists in baptisme haue alwaies or ordinarily worne a cope The rest that he citeth out of antiquitie for gorgeous attire and golden chalices partly is false and partly superfluous For Ornatus is by him translated into ornaments Valens commended Saint Basil Quòd tanto ornatu támque decenter c that with so great comelinesse and so decently he exercised his priestlie office Againe Sozomen lib. 8. cap. 21. sheweth that Chrysostomes priestes taken by force in ornatu vt erant in their attire as they were which was but a white garment as appeareth by diuers places of Chrysostome in Matth. Hom. 85. c. Likewise he asketh whether there were such neede for redeeming captiues building of Churches or that requies defunctorum might be at the buriall of the deade that chalices were broken and solde seeing Ambrose alloweth but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices As though Ambrose spake of buying of Trentals of Masses with the price of the chalices where he saith Off. lib. 2. cap. 28. Nemo potest dolere quia in sepulturis Christianorâ—â—n requies defunctorum est No man can be griened because in the buriall of Christians the rest of the deade is Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of buriall which is the third cause Nemo potest indignari c. No man can be angrie because the spaces are enlarged for burying of the reliquijs fidelâ—um the bodies of the faithfull Yet he asketh if I be not ashamed to cite such places of antiquitie seel hate chalices because they be chalices and because they be consecrated Whereas I saide nothing against the necessarie vse of cuppes in the Communion but of the superstitious pompe of the Papistes in their golden chalices and idolatrous manner of consecrating them while they suffer the poore to sterue for lacke of necessarie sustenâ—nce but once againe most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say that the sacred chalice is called there a vessell of our Lordes bloud and golde in which our Lordes bloud is powred where he speaketh of breaking the cuppes before they be solde least they should offensiuely be abused to wicked purposes But there saith he is not any such worde of them and in the middest of the chapter where these wordes are they are not spoken of the materiall cuppe but of the godlie vse of them when they are solde to redeeme captiues aunswering the obiection of such thinges that be once dedicated to Gods seruice Ille verus est thesaurus Domini c. That is a true treasure of the Lorde which worketh that which his bloud wrought Then I acknowledge a vessell of the Lordes bloud when I see redemption in both that the cup may redeeme from the enimie them whome the bloud hath redeemed from finne And againe Agnosco infusum auro c. I acknowledge the bloud of Christe powred into the golde not onely to haue made it redde but also to haue imprinted in it the vertue of diuine operation by the gift of redemption Such golde the holie Martyr Laurence reserued to the Lord c. But seeking to giue the Papistes a blowe Bristowe saith I care not though the stroke light vpon the Primitiue Church which had vessels of gold not onely in these princely buildings erected by Constantine c but also in the crypts or caues of the earth in time of persecutioÌ„ How Ambroâ—e and Acacius vsed thought these goldeÌ„ vesselâ— best bestowed I haue shewed But in the persecution time howe proueth Bristowe they had such plentie of golde and siluer Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence and râ—quiring the treasures of the Church as the cups of golâ—e and siluer in which they did sacrifice and set their waxe candles But what answere did Laurence the Deacon returne what chalices or candlestickes did he render but the poore that were relieued by the aimes of the Church
without succession vnto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood But let vs see what balde reason he bringeth to proue that we haue translated the Priesthood First we haue laboured to chaunge the Apostolicall names of Episcopus and Presbyter into superintendent elder So a translation out of Greeke into Latine or English is a chaunge with him and such as may not be abidden for he reproueth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian an elder Secondly I helpe an other argument of theirs concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchie is no part of Christian Ministerie by which I declare that we haue chaunged the Priesthoode of the Primitiue Church which had Popish Bishops Priestes Deacons Subdeacons Exorcistes Cantors Acolytes Ostiaries for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named either in the Greeke or Latine computation of Grynaeus I confesse the names are auncient and the offices in the Primitiue Church were some necessarie some profitable but I speake of the Popish Hierarchie in which nothing remaineth but the names But Bristowe thinketh I do not consider that S. Paule nameth there the onely Ministers of the worde or preachers Yes verily and therfore I exclude all these Popish orders which are such euery one of them as may be and are giuen to men that are no preachers or ministers of the word As for the order of Christian Deacons for ministring to the poore and Elders of gouernement I knowe they are not to be sought in that rehearsall But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith belong to the ministerie of the altar the Scripture speaketh no one word of them Yet he saith I may see the distinction of them Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine Concerning the first place I knowe not what he meaneth except he thinke Paule and Barnabas were not Apostles before handes were laid on them and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles Or else that those Prophetes and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter had nowe orders which howe he proueth I maruell specially seeing other Papistes doe vnderstand the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ministring for their sacrificing As for the other place is of Elders of gouernement and not Priestes of the Altar That the auncient writers vsed the names of Sacerdotes Leuitae Pontifices it was not because the ministers of the Gospell are a species or kinde of them but abusiuely for a certaine similitude of the Leuiticall order and Priesthoode with the ministers of the word and sacraments Thirdly he saith the Apostles Bishops and Priestes were made by other Bishops and Priestes ours by Lay men as of Kings and ciuile Magistrates which is an impudent slaunder Fourthly wee confesse their orders to bee good ynough because we reorder not them which is false for I saide their admission of the Church is a newe calling Bristowe saith that is a newe way to giue orders shewing him selfe ignorant that euen in the olde Church suche as were ordained by some heretikes were receiued after they had abiured their heresie to continue in the degree of the Cleargie as of the Nouatians Concil Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling O your Diuinitie O your Scripture as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington not to be a mocke Bishop but his excellent learning and diligent preaching c. I passe ouer as also the great preaching which nowe at the last is in Popish countries where within these threescore yeares was as great silence as in England at the same time Fiftly arguments neede not where I denie all Priesthoode but the spirituall Priesthoode common to all Christians Sixtly If I will inuent a thirde Priesthoode hee saith that the Primitiue or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchisedech and to offer sacrifice in breade and wine as Melchisedek Christ did Beware what you say of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you Christ as by Melchisedek But you regarde not our arguments they be but obiections At leastwise I pray you answere our obiections or else they wil be argumentes to proue you all blasphemous vsurpers of Christs singular priesthood But that you wil doe at leasure first you will proue your priesthood out of Augustine Contr. aduers. Leg. Prophet Lib. Cap. 19 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchisedek and yet but a sacrifice of praise So that you haue neither your sacrifice propitiatorie whereof the controuersie is nor your particular priesthood for he saith The Church from the Apostles time c. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise c. not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck Now who knoweth not that the sacrifice of praise is a spiritual sacrifice common to al the Church and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood So that S. Augastine naming the order of Melchisedek alludeth to those places of the scripture in which all Christians are called a royall priesthood Kinges and priestes 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but neuer intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ confirmed to him by oath Psalm 110. and which passeth not from him Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church If you obiect He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them I answere although the ministration of the sacrament be proper vnto them yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration is common to the whole Church as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth So that although a sacrifice be graunted yet a special priesthood is not proued But the sacrifice of the crosse was both of thankesgiuing of propitiatiō he troweth and therfore the memoriall sacrifice of the altar to be the one what doth it let to be the other This argument standing vpon Bristowes trowing and confounding the members of a diuision shall haue none other answere for me The places that I cite out of Ambrose ad virg laps de virgin Lib. 1. to proue that he vseth the names of sacrifice and propitiation vnproperly as other of the fathers doe Bristow will not allow as sufficient saying I might as wel so argue that S. Paule speaketh vnproperly because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing sacrifice whereas the Apostle Heb. 10. saith Christs body by death to be made a sacrifice And what offence is it to say S. Paule speaketh vnproperly where he speaketh figuratiuely as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow there is great difference but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it which confoundeth the propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ with the eucharisticall sacrifice of Christians as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Crosse the one could not be offered without death of the
of scripture as I brought to proue the sinne against the holie Ghost to be irremissible First the place of 1. Iohn 5. he saith is meant of them that be deade and damned in hell as he hath taught vs cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation as false and newe he citeth Augustine in ret li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I holde but afterward he addeth if he end his life in this peruersitie For we must despaire of no man be he neuer so wicked so long as he is in this life Neither is praier made vnwisely for him who is not despaired of Here are two contrarie expositions of one man in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place and not whether better or last pleased the authour of them That no man is to be despaired of while he liueth as it is contrarie to the scripture so to the practise of the Church which refused to pray for Iulianus the apostata and prayed to God against him Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon denounced him to his face to be impious and an apostata and enimie of God Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo lib. 5. cap. 4. The second text Heb. 6. Bristowe expoundeth it of falling through frailtie in persecution of them which can not be renewed by baptisme but the Apostle saith expressely by repentance and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling but of prolapsion or falling cleane away from Christ with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption The terrible denuntiation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristowe faith he speaketh it not to driue them to desperation but to moue them to repentance What if that be graunted that by shewing the daunger of malitious obstinacie which groweth to irremissible wickednes he should admonish them to beware in time as the Apostle doth Heb. 6. Doth it therefore followe that no man sinneth irremissiblie while he liueth Although it is plaine that our sauiour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickednes that nothing could reclay me them or bring them to repētance But Bristow would make me contrarie to my selfe who though in expresse words I count D. Allen his fellowes such as by you Heb. 6. cannot repent yet do exhort them truly to repent c. Pur. 461. But how proueth he that I count Allen and his fellowes such as cannot repent Forsooth because I say they haue sometime beene lightened and tasted of the good gifte of God Why sir are all such come to prolapsion I trow not In deede I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion that are curable Whether Allen were euer a protestant I know not but certaine I am that some of his fellowes haue beene lightned and were protestants of whom I speake and not of him If I say Bristow and his fellowes which are lay-men doe I say Bristow is a lay man This wilfull malicious cauilling Bristow if you take not heede of it in time argueth that you are fallen verie deepe if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasie But this is a cunning cōforter of them that are in desperation which affirmeth that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sinne and blasphemie shall not be remitted then he saith that all other sinne and blasphemie shal be remitted and therfore many one yea and aboue all number may be and is forgiuen the sinne against the holy ghost He meaneth because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiuen But if that condition were to be vnderstoode in them also that sin against the holy ghost what distinction were there for which he should say that blasphemie and sinne shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come Such a sinner hath no remission of sinnes but is guiltie of eternal damnation For that none shal be forgiuen without repentance as euerie man knew without that distinction But Bristow would haue it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgiue the sinne against the holy ghost and so he forgaue one of those Pharisees and he the verie worst of them all namely S. Paule who had bin indeede a Pharisee as he cōfesseth Act. 23. 26. but none of those Pharisees for he knewe not Christ in the flesh 2. Cor 5. yea he had beene a persecuter and a blasphemer as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees for he was an elect vessel of God and his persecution and blasphemie was not of malice or sinne against the holy ghost but of ignorance and blinde zeale of God for he addeth immediatly but I obteined mercie because I did it ignorantly in vnbeleefe As for those Pharisees against whom our Sauiour Christ thundreth that iudgement did blaspheme the holy ghost against their owne conscience and knowledge malitiously attributing vnto the diuell that which they knew to be the finger of God That which I speake out of Samuel Ieremie and Ezekiel Bristow saith is all spoken in one sense of temporall matters to wit of casting Saule from his kingdome and the Iewes into captiuitie But except the persons had bene incurable God would haue beene intreated to giue them repētance to haue continued Saule in his kingdome and the people in their countrie The rule that Ezechiel 33. is vnderstoode of sinnes that are not against the holy ghost as the examples doe plainely declare The 8. poynt is that strange interpretation of the creede a◠he calleth it Christ descended into hell to redeeme vs out of hell by suffering the wrath of God for our sinnes Heb. 5. First Bristow saith there is neuer a word of that article and much lesse of the interpretation thereof in that chapter yet after to proue that to bee prayer which I saide was a complaint as though it might not be be a complayning prayer he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ who in the daies of his flesh with a mightie crie and with teares offered vp prayers and supplications to him that was able to saue him out of death and was heard from his feare or from that he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by this text Bristow would proue that Christ was not forsaken of his father no not corporally although he complayned that he was forsaken as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed when he sayde My God my God why hast thou forsaken me which to him that was God was greater torment of hell then any heart of man can conceiue And therefore Bristow which maketh all to stand in the bodilie death of Christ and raileth at Caluine for shewing how necessarie it was for Christ to suffer in soule as much as in body for the redemption of the whole man doth nothing but cauil slaūder one while fayning that Caluine should make two deathes of Christ another while that he was in feare lest he should haue
meate which abideth vnto eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once set downe which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth as to the meate which taryeth but being applyed to the meate which perisheth it cannot be turned Worke not the meare which perisheth as stuffe that is present but Labor not or seeke not for it as you doe which is absent therefore it must be so turned as it may serue for both And where as Sander saith that this meat is not laboured for because it is not sought out by our diligence but giuen by Christ it is a fonder reason except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges because all good thinges are the giftes of God Finally that you may see what a singular quarrelling vaine glorious person he is to seeke a knot in a rush you shal vnderstande that the papistes themselues translate this place euen as the great bible doeth namely Heskins as well learned a Papist as Sander lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified is ver 57. of the same chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The true English is He that eateth me he shal also liue for me The english bible readeth he that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me The best colour of his cauil is that propter patrem is translated in the same ver For the father Howbeit seing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter signifieth the efficient cause there is no fraude in turning it By the meanes of me which is the same that is meant by For me and as I thinke was so turned by the translators to shewe that For the father includeth not the finall cause as it might seeme but the eternall efficient cause of life As for the cauillation that a man may liue by meanes of him which is absent is altogether childish and ridiculous for who can vnderstande him to be absent which is eaten The controuersie is not of the presence but of the maner of the presence But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ He that eateth me shall liue by me or for me when they affirme that wicked men eate him which liue not by him for this is generally true of all that eate him and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily For the Sacrament in deede may be eaten vnworthily but Christ himselfe is not eaten but where he giueth life The 3. corruption obserued by Sander is vers 58. of Iohn 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth english it He that eateth of this bread The adding of this word Of may be the Printers fault for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying he that eateth of this breade vsed by Christ before verse 51. heere can bee no corruption or falsification prooued As for the distinction which Sander maketh betweene eating Christ and eating of Christ eating his flesh and eating of his flesh is friuolus and vaine for none eate of him but they which eate him Yes saith he Of him we may eate without the Sacrament but him selfe wee properly eate onely vnder the forme of breade Howe vntrue this is you may see by this argument None can haue eternall life except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloode But manie haue eternall life which eate not the Sacrament Therefore manie eate Christ and the fleshe of Christ which eate not the Sacrament Ioan. 6. ver 53. 57. The 4. falsification is in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm accepisset Iesus panem gratias egisset fregit dedit discipulis ait The true English is Iesus hauing taken breade and giuen thankes or blessed brake and gaue to the disciples and saide The common Bible readeth Iesus tooke breade and when he had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue i◠to the disciples The holy scripture saieth not that Iesus brake it neither that hee gaue it but that hee brake and gaue Againe in saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul fiue times putting the particle it which is neither in the Greeke nor in the Latine Bible Who woulde thinke that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly What say you Sander is not the particle it added neither in Greeke nor Latine When the accusatiue case is once set downe and then followe transitiue verbes is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue to adde the particle it You say he brake and gaue but not brake it nor gaue it Will you teach vs a newe Grammer that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues lest the wilde Irish boyes that goe to the Grammer schoole should hisse at you as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you and aske you what hee brake and what hee gaue If hee brake not and gaue not it which hee tooke If you say hee brake his bodie and not the breade because you say he so gaue his bodie that hee gaue no breade aduise your selfe howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body which was but once broken for vs on the crosse but yet not broken into seuerall peeces as that thing whatsoeuer you will call it was broken which hee gaue to his disciples And this vndoubtedly you meane when you say The wordes of saint Matthew doe not all stande in order in so much as Christ said the wordes of consecration before hee brake the sacrament or gaue to his disciples And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering the words Verily saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth And if all these Euangelists and Apostles doe set the words out of order whence come you that will take vpon you to set thē in order Haue you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order And if you had haue you forgotten what you did write euen nowe in the preface that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them But standing of the wordes out of order and that in euerie one that rehearseth them must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie yea this standing or not standing out of order may decide a great parte of the controuersie for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue then he brake and gaue breade And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes and saint Paul fauour this opinion you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses which had a care to place
the wordes in such order as they shoulde giue no manifest occasion of heresie by disordering them The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite the truest English were make this thing The fullest doe and make this thing The common Bible readeth in Saint Luke this doe In saint Paul This doe yee And that which is most abhominable of all in the homily of the sacrament it is translated doe ye thus This great abhomination if in any booke it bee so founde is but the Printers faulte although in sense there bee no great difference But seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and facere signifieth to doe as well as to make what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do As for Sanders fullest translation by doing and making is most absurde For when a word hath two significations no wise translator will render them both but onely that which is most proper for the place and doing is here more proper then making For though it sounde not absurdly in Sanders blasphemous eares when hee saieth doe this is all one as if he had said make this my body yet that the body of Christ should be properly said to be made by meÌ„ which was once made in the wombe of the virgin by the holy ghost in all godly mens minds it is both absurde and blasphemous And that the word facite is to be translated by doing and not by making it is euident by this that S. Paule referreth it to the whole action of the supper 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This doe as often as you shall drinke it in my remembrance c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio Quòd si à domino praecipitur ab apostolo eius hoc idem coÌ„firmatur traditur vt quotiesâ—unque biberimus in commemorationeÌ„ domini hoc faciamus quod facit dominus inuenimur non obseruari à nobiâ— quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus Et calicem pari ratione miscentes à diuino magisterio non recedamus If then it be commanded by the Lord the same thing is confirmed and deliuered by his Apostle that so often as we drinke we should doe this thing in remembrance of our Lord which our Lord himself did we are found that we do not obserue that which is commanded except we also doe the same thinges which our Lord did And ministring the cuppe after the same manner we depart not from his diuine teaching Last of all Heskins the papist and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing it is without all shadowe of reason for by This what can be vnderstood but this thinge And seing our English Pronown This doth aptly answere the Greeke pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what neede is it to adde the worde Thing which is not expressed either in the Greeke or in the Latine The sixt falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke and Saint Paul Luke 22. 1. Corinth 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationem The true English were For the remembrance of me or To the end I may be remembred The common bible turneth in the remembrance of me A strange quarell if a man could vnderstande it A thing sayth he may be donne best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him And may not a man be firste remembred and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him Or would Sander that Christ should not be thought vpon before he see the Masse cake lifted vp which he saith is made for the remembrance of him For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say When my body is made by the preist and lifted vp to be adored and all the people taught to bow downe to the body of Christ and to come with pure conscience to receiue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which sayth do and make this thing for the remembrance of me If this be the fulfilling of the scripture then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand yeares after Christ vntill eleuation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed And then is it not fulfilled in any priuate Masse where none of the people receiue nor yet be taught to receiue it Where he saith that Christ can not be remembred by eating of bread drinking of wine as the Sacramentaries would haue it so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth but by folowing of his crosse and death by penance by humilitie by confessing our finnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them I answere the Protestants require not only eating and drinking but preaching of the Lords death repentance fayth loue and reuerence in the receiuers as for the rest of popish trumpery when he can shewe that Christ required or the Apostels vsed we will gladly admit it In the meane time let the readers iudge how this later kind of remembrance can be learned out of the former which I haue set downe in his owne wordes of making lyfting adoring c. Beside these great corruptions there are other two small faults in S. Paul The first 1. Cor. 10. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned the partaking where it should be the communicating of the body bloud of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault because the Catholike Latine translation in one place calleth it participatio a partaking which is saith he when parte of a thing is taken and not the whole I thinke the translatour vsed the word of partaking because it is better knowen to English meÌ„ then the terme of communicating Especially seing the Apostle vseth both termes indifferently as one For in the next verse he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vulgar Latine is Omnes qui de vno pane participamus All wee which do partake of one breade And speaking of them which did eate the Sacrifices of Israelites of which euery one did not eate the whole he saide they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators of the altar And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicators with diuels And returning to the Christians he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cannot partake of the table of the Lorde and of the table of diuels Wherefore in that translation there is neither falsification nor corruption great or small The last fault is 1. Cor. 10. in the place by mee cited wee all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should de Englished of the one bread For such strength hath the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometime the coÌ„mon bible turneth the Greeke article
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
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
might be◠conuerted yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction at which neuer a Iewe was present And where as Sander argueth that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament hee sheweth double follye for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud and secondly when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade to bee redde of all men howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion before infidels that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous as Sander imagineth Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet in other words of the same homilie as you haue seene hee speaketh of the presence of Christ euen in his sacraments The third Booke In the Preface of the third Booke he promiseth to proue First that Christ in the sixt of S. Iohn spake of the gifte he made afterwarde in his parting banket Secondly that the real presēce of his flesh and bloud is euidently prooued by such words of promise as he there vttered Afterwarde he excuseth himselfe that he is driuen to handle deepe obscure matters being a poore scholler of Oxford and yet inferior to 200 that were in the late Tridētine councel So that if any Parliament man brought vp in hawking and hunting think he writeth too profound ly for his vnderstanding he must thinke that he is lesse able to be a iudge of this whole controuersie and of all questions in religion As though it were necessarie for euerie member of the Parliament that shall entreate of cases of religion to be trained vp in schoole points of Popish diuinitie which the farther they be from the vnderstāding of that cōmō people y◠further they are from faith Christiā religiō which ought to be cōmonly know◠euē to the simplest women and children And albeit that euerie parliament man is not able of himselfe to iudge of al controuersies of religion yet they altogether by the instruction of so many godly learned men as are among them may decree what lawes are necessarie to bee made for the aduancement of Gods glorie in religion as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet tranquillitie To conclude his foolish preface hath neuer done craking of hard and difficult matters as though he were a man of such ripe iudgement in them that whatsoeuer he did write were the Oracles of Apollo where as in deede euerie meane wise man shall easily perceiue that when he would seeme to winde himself out of a difficult and intricate matter hee sheweth more boldnesse in aduouching then soundnes in his approuing CAP. I. The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn is declared First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three wayes by faith and spirit onely without the Sacrament in the Sacrament of the Altar onely without faith and grace or in both together Of the laste kind of receiuing he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vpon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not which the sonne of man will giue them This gift saith hee is plainelie meant of his last supper and so saith Theophilact a late writer But because they could not come to the working of this gift without faith vpon him therefore hee teacheth for a preparation that he is the breade of life c After which preparation made he returneth saith he to expounde his owne gifte shewing most expressely that which he will giue in his last supper And the breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come when Christ spake vnto his disciples but Christ saieth his peculiar gifte was to come This onely reason he vseth in this Chapter Wherein you must note first that heere of a falsifying minde hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them For his wordes are these And the breade that I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde In which wordes the gifte is manifestly referred vnto his passion and not vnto his supper Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe was from the beginning of the worlde yet that singular act by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vnto eternall life and was giuen for meate was not then performed but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion For all benefites of Christe haue like streames flowed alwayes from the bloud of his crosse and our redemption and reconciliation thereby If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence leaueth out these words which I will giue which it is certaine by the Greeke text of saint Iohn that our sauiour Christ did speake hee cannot so escape for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion brought vnto it although it want the wordes yet may well reteine the sense But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes which he knoweth both to haue beene vsed by Christ and which giue a cleere and cleane contrarie sense to that whiche hee affirmeth and that in so weightie a matter as is the passion of Christe wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde CAP. II. It is prooued by circumstances and by the conference of holie Scriptures that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one nor altogether prooue that Christ speaketh of his supper otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter The first circumstance is the time which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth before his supper instituted to argue that he speaketh of his supper is a vaine argument both because the time is vncertaine and also because the time of Easter if it were certaine hath better relation to his passion then to his supper The 2. circumstance is the myracle made in breade A ridiculous matter as though it were not made also in flesh But in deede the
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
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
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
those wordes the same will bee the sense of these wordes taking the speaches either as proper or figuratiue But Christ saith he hath forced vs to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes This Chalice that is to say the thing contained in this Chalice is my bloud I pray you sir what necessitie except the speach be figuratiue You will say it is figuratiuely onely for the cuppe to signifie that which is contained therein If you so say then tell mee once againe whether these wordes The newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in proper speach with these wordes my bloude If the newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in sense with these wordes my bloude they are figuratiue for no man properlie vseth so to speake that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude when hee nameth nothing but his bloude naturally If these wordes bee figuratiue not onelie in the name of cuppe but in the wordes following whiche are is the newe Testament in my bloude then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue and all the babling about This and Is and bodie and bloude and mine c. are vaine and foolish for This and Is are in this figuratiue speech and that in one manner of speaking is called My bloude in an other is called the newe Testament in my bloude and by necessarie analogie that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes My bodie may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes The new Testament in my bodie crucified That the Pronowne hoc is the Neuter gender and hic the Masculine gender it prooueth not the alteration of substance for the genders followe the names and note no substantiall propertie where the thinges differ not in the sexe But where you saide first the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue bodie where it endeth then to the formes you are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also to the schoolemen which say it pointeth to neither of both but vnto indiuiduum vagum a singular vncertaine or wandering thing But point it as you will it can haue no true literall sense if you will holde your owne principles for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered as all papists I thinke except Sander will affirme That which hee had in his hande was breade at that instant when hee saide This. And Sander himselfe saith This which appeared to them breade to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes His owne bodie Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended and howe can is a Verbe of the present tense signifie that which shall bee after although it bee neuer so soone after But of the Pronowne This wee shall haue occasion to speake in three Chapters following and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise CAP. IIII. That the pronowne this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine I haue prooued before that if it can point to nothing else if it point to anie thing that was there present but vnto breade and wine because bodie and bloude by your owne principle was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered But Sander saith this signifieth a substance because Christ saith not This is in my body but this is my bodie which is a blockish reason for Christ saith This is the new Testament which is an Accident in my bloud as well as This is my bloude Well the Protestants opinion is saith he that This pointeth to the bread and the wine which signifie his bodie bloud But that cannot be because this cannot agree with breade and wine neither in Greeke nor Latine and then telleth vs the genders of the nownes c. But good Sir the pronowne This is the newter gender put absolutely comprehending in signification that thing which was shewed which needed not to bee called breade and wine because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses But then saith Sander you correct the wordes of Christ as though he had said This which is breade is my bodie and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes doeth not correct them neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This to the generall substance of breade but affirme that it demonstrateth that breade onely which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament And whereas it is translated in Latine Hic est sanguis the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders maie agree with either of them but that the Pronowne This is to bee referred to the wine the other Euangelistes doe shewe which vtter it thus this cuppe that is the wine in this cuppe And whereas Cyprian sayeth haec est caro mea hee might aswell haue said pointing to bread hoc est caro mea or hic panis est caro mea and yet his words as he vttereth them haue none other meaning euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD saith Hoc est signum foederis c. This is the signe of the couenaunt where hoc agreeing in gender with signum doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna Exodus 16. saieth Iste est panis quem dominus c. This is the breade whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate In the Latine the pronowne This agreeth with panis which is the Masculine gender yet doth it demonstrate Man which is the Newter Therefore this grammaticall discourse of genders of nownes Adiectiues and their Substantiues serueth to no purpose to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This. CAP. V. That the Pronowne This cannot point to any certaine acts which is a doing about the breade and wine The Pronowne saieth hee is of the singular number and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges done about the breade as taking breaking blessing c. and seeing it can point but one thing it can point no one acte certainely To this ridiculous argument I answere that the Pronowne this doeth demonstrate that breade with all actions and accidents belonging to it so that the sense is This breade thus taken blessed broken giuen eaten is my bodie that is as Tertullian and Augustine saye a figure or signe of my bodie euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer but not a Lambe nakedly considered but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging such a Lambe so taken killed the bloude so sprinckled the bodie â—osted eaten standing with staues in their
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
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
presence if any sacrament bee made at al Fisher whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if or condition you shal be answered to Fishers whether or question Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words Fisher of our doings If the scripture be not Christs words Fisher spake onely of our doings 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures Nay syr he affirmeth precisely that it cannot be proued by the scripture These are the foure great enormous fault I trust after this tast no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes falsely fathered vpon Master Iewel Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onely to the matter in controuersie Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued Videlicet that the people were not taught c. as in the beginning of the Chapter The question being not of the wordes but of the meaning saith Iewel Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. to proue that Christ lacked neither wisedome nor vtterance to speak plainely of his Sacraments and mysteries which is verie true for hee spake plainely syncerely and truely although he spake figuratiuely Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner as Augustine saith But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking M. Iewel M. Harding M. Sander and my selfe it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse as Sander giueth me example Iewel Christ was the Rocke but yet not really Sand. S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament or any other thing Fulke S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament made by God in the wildernes Sand. Two diuerse natures in those words are named which can not be one substance But this is my body nameth one substance Fulke One substance is demonstrated and another named Moses might haue said truely shewing the rock to the people This is Christe or els S. Paul could not haue said truly the rock was Christ. Sand. It was not anie one certaine rocke whereof S. Paul spake for the water flowed out of two Rocks Either of which did signifie Christ and they both are onely one Rocke in meaning and in substance figured therefore Saint Paul meant onely of the spirituall Rocke which is Christ. Fulke Manna which was the spirituall meat they did eate rayned euerie day yet was it but one Christ in signification therefore S. Paul meant onely of the spiritual Manna which is Christ and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke Iewel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his bodie and bloud Sand. He did so but he gaue such a figure as is also the substance of his bodie as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance is also the selfesame substance with his father Fulke As he gaue a figure he gaue not the substance Christ is the figure of his fathers substance as he is a person distinct by himselfe and not his father Neither doth Augustine meane of such an vnitie in essence as is betweene God the father the sonne when he doth plainly deuide sacramentum rem sacramenti the Sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament that is the figure and the thing figured Sand. He gaue a true and not a false signe lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous not a common figure lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine not a rhetoricall figure lib. 2. cap 14. Fulke These are answered in their proper places aboue cited Sand. He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth not which betokeneth a thing absent from it which August declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come c. Fulke Augustine in this place and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament and of the new that theirs were of Christ to come once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come but of the reall presence he speaketh no word Ablata sunt signa promittentia c. The promising signes are taken away because the truth that was promised is exhibited In this bodie we are of this bodie we are partakers Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof after a mysticall manner and so were all that euer pleased GOD not after a corporall manner such as the Papistes imagine wherefore Augustine saith vpon the same Psalme alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament Sursum corda habcamus Siresurrexistis cum Christo dicit fidelibus corpus sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit c. Let vs haue our hearts aboue If yee bee risen againe with Christ hee speaketh to the faithfull hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde if you bee risen againe with Christ sauour of these things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely and not as he saith else-where Sacramento tenus as farre as the sacrament or outward signe onely Sand. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure Fulke Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14. Sand. The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible corruptible mortal nature which Augustine knowing was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth none otherwise then in the shape of breade for that respect hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie Fulke Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onely by way of a similitude sheweth that if children should neuer learne more of Christ then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them that it is the bodie of Christ and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onely in the celebration of the sacrament they woulde imagine that Christ had appeared onely in that shape but this is impossible therfore Augustine coulde not feare it And seeing hee had no such feare he had no such respect as Sander dreameth as well concerning his feare as concerning his respect Iew. Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of my bodie Sand. Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body Fulk Tertullian proueth that Christ had a true bodie because the sacrament was a figure thereof for a phātasme or a vaine thing can
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome