remained euer from the beginning now if it be sayd that hee meaneth the Church vnder the Gospell Rom. 15.8 Heb. 2.3 it will trouble him to prooue that the Apostles were the first planters of that Church in Iudaea seeing Christ himselfe was minister of the circumcision and first began to preach saluation before it was confirmed by them that heard him Moreouer that the Church was euer dispersed through the whole world by the ministery of the Apostles is sooner said than prooued for though Paul say that the fall of the Iewes was the riches of the world yet doth hee not meane the whole world simply without exception no more than Saint Luke doth when he saith that Augustus Caesar decreed that all the world should bee taxed Luk. 2.1 Math. 28.19 Luk. 24.47 Mark 16.15 Act. 16.6 c. 2. Cor. 10.13 c. and so must wee vnderstand all Nations in Matthew and Luke and all the world and euerie creature in Saint Markes Gospell for though the words be generall and without limitation yet the Apostles were kept in and guided more particularly by the holy Ghost Lastly it would bee agreed vpon what faith or beleefe your Papist meaneth when hee saith Doe you beléeue the catholicke Church whether iustifying or historicall For though he seeme to fetch his question out of the Creed wherein the articles of iustifying faith are recorded and so to make the catholicke Church inuisible for faith is the euidence of thinges not seene Heb. 11.1 yet when hee addeth planted by the Apostles in Iudaea c. he maketh it visible and so not to be beleeued Wherefore though this first question haue neither head nor foot yet thus in charitie I conceiue of it that it demaundeth whether we beleeue historically that there were orderly Churches or companies professing catholicke doctrine taught by the Apostles first among the Iewes and then among the Gentiles which profession and professors shall continue in one place or other to the worlds end if this be the question then haue you answered catholiquely first that you beleeue this and then secondly that the Protestants onely are the visible and knowne members of Gods church Now where it is demaunded in the third and fourth place how wee knowe this whether by outward meanes or by inspiration it is answered that the canonicall word of God doth so testifie and better witnesse than this we desire none and touching this word of God the Papists graunt all those bookes to bee canonicall which wee call canonicall though they adde other Bookes which wee admit not for grounds and foundations of faith but if wee cannot make good our profession by those bookes which both sides agree vpon and by the same bookes ouerthrow all that the Papists hold against vs at this day then I for my part will soone yeeld to the Pope and craue absolution vpon my knees Nowe forsooth the discerning of these canonicall Scriptures is called into question and they must bee subiected to the infirmity of man howbeit your answere though it be true yet is it insufficient for howsoeuer the vniforme consent of antiquitie is not to be neglected yet as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 5.36 that he had greater witnesse than the witnesse of Iohn so hath the holy Scripture greater witnesse than the witnesse of the Fathers namely the puritie and incontrolled antiquitie of it the Maiestie of the stile the conformablenesse of the precepts thereof to the lawe of nature and diuers other outward meanes noted by Master Caluine in his Institutions Lib. 1. Cap. 8. otherwise it were hard to tell how the men of Beroea and other ancient Christians discerned the Scripture in the Apostles time and after Act. 17.11.12 before any one of the ancient Fathers was borne or had written a syllable and herehence it is easily gathered how vaine the sixt question is for traditions are not confirmed by such pregnant euidence as the Scriptures are but hange in the winde vppon the conceits of men which may be deceiued and therfore a Christian man may well beleeue the one though he neglect the other Rom. 1.16 Heb. 4.12 1. Cor. 2.4 1. Cor. 14.24.25 Luk. 24.32 the powerfull working of the word of God described by Saint Paul and the Author to the Hebrewes and the Disciples of Christ in Saint Lukes Gospell are sufficient witnesses to the soule that Traditions which haue not the same image and superscription may be refused as the commandements and doctrines of men The Dialogue Sectio II. PA. Do you not perceiue that by this description of the Church you haue giuen two mortall wounds vnto your owne cause first you haue excluded the Protestant and Puritane out of the Church by you described and secondly you thrust out all the ancient Fathers and Doctors that euer flourished in the Church since the Apostles time Pro. The wounds you speake of surely are not mortall for as yet I feele them not Pap. They will prooue sensible when they come to the searching first you haue excluded the Protestant and Puritane who hold many points of Doctrine not a These points are warrantable by Scripture as it shall appeare warranted by the Scriptures as the obseruation of the Sunday in stead of Saturday which was the Sabbath of the Iewes that Christians may eat bloud notwithstanding the decrée of the first generall Councell to the contrarie that a christian Magistrate may punish theft with death which in a Iewish Magistrate was a breach of the commaundement that it is a greater offence in a christian to haue Concubines and many wiues then it was in Dauid who notwithstanding was a man according to Gods owne heart that Christians should be tied vnto the law prescribed vnto the Iewes for marriage within degrées of affinitie and not vnto the like law prescribed to the brother to raise vp séede vnto his brother dying without issue For all which you haue no warrant out of the scriptures Pro. For all these points of Doctrine wee haue sufficient warrant out of the booke of God and first concerning the Sabbath of Christians it is euident in the 20. of the Acts that the Christians did assemble themselues the first day of the weeke to heare Paul preach and to breake bread likewise in the 16. Chapter of Saint Pauls 1. Epistle to the Corinths it appeareth that Saint Paul did ordaine in all the Churches of Galatia that collection should be made for the poore vpon the first day of the weeke where hee doth also exhort the Corinthians to doe the like vpon the same day whereby it is euident that the Sunday was appointed by the Apostles to be the Christians Sabbath which is nothing else but a day of rest from labour and a day to bee bestowed in hearing the word preached breaking of bread whereby is meant administration of the Sacrament giuing of almes and other workes of deuotion and pietie for proofe whereof out of the places aboue alleaged I doe draw this
argument against you That day wherein the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely meete together to exercise themselues in hearing the word preached receiuing the Sacrament and giuing of Almes that same day did the Apostles ordain to be the Sabbath of Christians but the Apostle did ordaine that Christians should weekly assemble themselues vpon the first day of the weeke for the purposes before mentioned therefore the Apostle did ordaine the first day of the weeke to be the Christians Sabbath Pap. I denie the Maior for that being graunted if the Apostles did appoint moe daies in a wéeke than one for Christians to assemble themselues for the like Christian exercises by the same argument you a Non sequitur Looke the answere may likewise prooue two Sabbaths in one wéek and no doubt those Christians who liued together in the fellowship of the Apostles sold their possessions and had all thinges common b That is not their intent Act. 2.45 to the intent that they might be wholy employed in the seruice of God had moe dayes than one in a wéeke appointed for that purpose Your Minor proposition also which is that the Apostle did ordaine that Christians should assemble thēselues vpon the first day of the wéeke c. is false not warranted by either of the places of scripture by you alleaged In the 20. of the Acts the first day of the wéeke is not prescribed vnto Christians as a day whereon they ought to assemble themselues for the seruice of God but there only mentiō is made that the Disciples were assembled on the first day of the wéeke to break bread and that Paul intending to depart on the morrow continued preaching till midnight Let vs c Admit what you will yet the first of the weeke is the ordinarie appointed day admit that Saint Paul was to depart on the Tuesday and that the Christians were assembled on the Monday to breake bread and to heare Paul preach before his departure might not I in this case make as stronge an argument to prooue Monday to be the Christians Sabbath as yours is for the Sunday In the 16. Chapter of Saint Pauls 1. Epistle vnto the Corinths the Apostle doth prescribe the first day of the wéeke vnto the Corinths as a day whereon they ought to lay aside for the poore as their deuotion shall serue it is not preaching prayer or administration of Sacraments that is in this place enioyned but it is a laying aside for the poore Why doth the Apostle enioyne this contribution for the poore to be made at that time the answere followeth in the text That there be no gatherings when I come Why would the Apostle haue no gatherings when he came no doubt because hée would not haue such spirituall exercises as he determined to bestow amonge them at his returne vnto them d Then this day was not onely for collections but for spirituall exercises hindered or impeached by such collections if this were the meaning of the Apostle then is it not like that he would appoint the Sabbath for the making of such collections which is wholy e Not wholy so as no time should be spared for collections to be employed in such spirituall exercises as hée meant to vse amonge them at his returne and therefore this place would better serue a wrangler to prooue that the first day of the wéek was not appointed to be the christians Sabbath then it will serue you to the contrarie Pro. Out of this place it may be gathered that the Christians vpon the first day of the weeke did weekely assemble together for there is no time so fit for collections as generall assemblies and a weekely assembly vpon that day doth manifestly proue it to be the Sabbath Pap. You can wring no generall assemblies out of that place for the text saith Let euerie one put apart by himselfe and lay vp which argueth rather f Neither doe we imagine that all saw what euerie man gaue or tooke it from him but he himselfe layd it vp as the rest did in the cōmon purse else Paul must either gather it or tarry the gathering of it when hee came a priuate laying vp at home than a contribution in an assembly as your marginall note in the English Bible interpreteth for how can a man bée sayd to lay vp that which he doth deliuer to another in such a contribution Pro. It appeareth in the first of the Reuelation that in Saint Iohns time the first day of the weeke was called the Lords day which is as much as if hee had called it the Christians Sabbath Pap. You shall find in that Chapter that Saint Iohn was in the spirit on the Lords day whereupon you may conclude that in Saint Iohns time one day of the wéeke was called the Lords day which we doe graunt and more than that that the first day of the wéeke was then called the Lords day which would haue put you to your shifts to haue prooued out of the word yet haue you gained nothing for what consequent is this the first day of the wéeke was of the Apostles called the Lords day therefore the Iewes Sabbath is to be abolished and the first day of the wéeke is to be obserued for the Sabbath of Christians might not the first day of the wéeke be called the Lords day in regard of Christs resurrection and yet the Iewes Sabbath remaine or be abolished as other of their ceremonies were without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof Or will you rather reason thus Saint Iohn could be in the spirit but on the christians Sabbath only Ergo the first day of the wéeke is the Sabbath of christians if this be your argument you doe but clauum clauo pellere for when you shall haue prooued your antecedent by the word then will I graunt the consequent and as easily may you prooue the one as the other but let it be admitted that you can prooue by scripture that the Christians were enioyned by the Apostles to assemble themselues wéekely vpon the Sunday to ioyne together in prayer hearing the word preached yet what word haue you to prooue that g Neither doe we say neither can you proue it is all bodily labour is vnlawfull vpon that day they might well assemble in prayer vpon that day and heare 2. or 3. sermons and yet spare some time to bestowe vpon their labours and the commaundement forbiddeth labor on the seuenth day and not h The first day is now become the seuenth on the first day of the wéeke Thus you may sée while you do nodum in scirpo quaerere by séeking to prooue that by scripture which the Church doth hold by tradition how you are driuen to wrest the scripture and how weake and ridiculous your arguments be If the obseruation of the feast of Easter and other festiuall dayes prayer for the dead or the Sacrifice of the Masse had found the same entertainment
with Iohn Caluine as the obseruation of the Sabbath hath done I doubt not but that although he would not haue allowed of traditions yet hée would haue found you as sufficient proofe for any of them out of the word as hée hath done for the Sabbath for so great a mote in your eyes is the tradition of the Church that if your appetite serue to take liking of any point of doctrine grounded thereon you will make any homely shift rather than you wil acknowledge the true i Tradition a fountaine in Poperie fountaine from whence it springeth and no maruell for acknowledge the authoritie of those traditions which k If you may doe what you lift we cannot stand by the testimonie of all antiquitie were first deliuered by the Apostles and haue euer since béen obserued and deliuered ouer as it were from hand to hand by succession of Bishops and your heresie wil fall to the ground The next point of doctrine which you doe hold without warrant of scripture is that it is lawfull for Christians to eat bloud which was forbidden by the decrée of the first generall Councell where the Apostles were present l I will finde you scripture for this in Saint Pauls Epistles what scriptures haue you to doe contrarie to a Canon of so great a councell Pro. It is manifest that in the infancy of the church the Apostles hauing to do with the Iewes a people wonderfully addicted to the strict obseruation of their law did not thinke good to take from them all the ceremonies thereof at once but rather by little and little to seeke to winne them by tolerating many things for a time which in the Gospell were abolished and to that intent Paul did circumcise Timothy Acts 16. Pap. What warrant of scripture haue you to prooue that the commandement was giuen to be obserued but for a time in regard of the weaknesse of the Iewes Pro. Wee haue the word to prooue that the ceremoniall lawes were abolished by the death of Christ whereof abstayning from bloud is one and it is euident by the 15. of the Acts that the assembly of the Apostles in the first generall Councell at Ierusalem was vpon this occasion they of the circumcision which beleeued were greatly scandalized because the Gentiles who were ioyned with them in the vnitie of the same faith had vtterly reiected their law whervpon much controuersie did arise between them the Iewes contending that the beleeuing Gentiles ought to be circumcised and to obserue the lawe of Moses and the Gentiles to the contrarie For appeasing whereof the sayd Councell assembled and decreed that the Christians should abstaine from blood by eating whereof as it seemeth the weake Iewes were greatly offended intending thereby somewhat to satisfie the Iewes and yet not to lay too heauie a yoke vpon the Gentiles Thus you see how by the word the eating of bloud was prohibited vnto the Christians of those times and how by the word it is permitted vnto vs. Pa. By what word can you prooue that the m This fellow loues to beare himself speak else would he not make such an idle repetion eating of bloud which was both prohibited vnto the Iewes before the Gospell and to christians in the Gospell is now lawfull for vs to doe that the law prescribed to the Iewes concerning marriage within degrées of affinitie is still to be retained and that the like law which commandeth the brother to raise vp séede vnto his brother deceased without issue is to be abolished that it is lawfull for a Christian Magistrate to take away a mans life for 12. d. which was not lawfull by the law of God to doe but in such cases onely as in the same law are specified with many other such like instances too long to repeat when you haue tired your selfe in searching and wresting of scriptures you shall finde n Else are you deceiued no other warrant for them than the continuall practise and tradition of the Church Pro. It appeareth in the 5. Chapter of the 1. to the Corinths that Paul did disallow of marriage within degree of affinitie which is warrant sufficient for the retaining of the lawes prescribed to the Iewes on that behalfe Pap. You haue no such warrant out of that place for the text saith onely There is a o The fornication had not been so haynous if the Sonne in law might marry his Mother in law fornication among you not once named among the heathen that a man should haue his fathers wife it will be hard for you to prooue out of this place that the Fornication here specified was committed by a marriage betwéen the Sonne and the Mother in law p All this is but vaine talke that helpes him not awhit for the lawes of the Corinthians would permit no such marriage to be celebrated as it may be gathered out of the text for if such a fornication be not named among the heathen much lesse is it permitted by the lawes of the Corinths and therefore this Fornication was committed by hauing his fathers wife as a Concubine or a Whore and not as a wife as you imagine The Answere YOur Papist heere talkes in his sleepe of two mortall wounds which wee by our description of the Church haue giuen to our owne cause and therefore your description must bee had in memorie which as it bindeth the true Church to the voice of Christ sounding in the canonicall Scriptures so it giueth vs to vnderstand that the false Church heareth the voice of stangers and will not bee ruled by the written word of the Almightie yet notwithstanding the true Church may mistake the voice of Christ and so erre whereby the first wound is fully healed and if it should be graunted that the Church in generall cannot erre yet it followeth not that euerie one in particular that buildeth hay or stubble vpon the foundation is therefore no member of the Church And so the second wound which speakes of the exclusion of the Fathers Doctors is neither mortall nor sensible Now touching the first wound which cencerneth the Protestant and Puritane it is here brought to certaine particular points which I will speake of in order The first is the obseruation of the Sunday which you proue syllogistically out of the Scripture after this manner 1. The day whereon the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely meet together to exercise themselues in hearing the word preached receiuing the Sacraments and giuing of Almes that same day did the Apostles ordaine to be the Sabbath of Christians 2. But the Apostles did ordaine that Christians should weekely assemble themselues vpon the first day of the weeke for the purpose before mentioned Ergo The Apostles did ordaine the first day of the weeke to be the Christians Sabbath Now where your Papist saith That if the Maior were true then the Apostles appointing moe dayes than one for such exercises should appoint moe Sabbaths in a wéeke
eminent day and chosen from amonge the other dayes of the weeke for the speciall seruice of the Lord so was it celebrated as an eminent day and so still kept in fresh memorie in the Churches of Asia now that this day was the first day of the weeke and no other it will bee easie to shew without shifts not onely because no other day was euer permanently kept holy but also because we may trace the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dominica applied to this day as it were a Hare in the snow issuing out of this place of the Reuelation into all the Churches of Christendome Yea but saith your Papist Might not the first day of the wéeke be called the Lords day in regard of Christs Resurrection I say no for then it had been called the Rising day or the Resurrection day as the like dayes be namely Ascension Circumcision c. For to call it the Lords day in regard of Christs Resurrection is vtterly insensible When he demaundeth further Whether the Iewes Sabbath might not remaine or be abolished as other Ceremonies were Col. 2.16.16 without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof I answere that the Iewes Sabbath is taken away by Saint Paul so farre forth as it was ceremoniall but the morall parts thereof namely that one day in a weeke should be layd apart for spirituall meditations and exercises Exod. 23.12 and for the recreation of seruants and dum creatures was to be kept still inuiolable without any such substitution as he dreames of and so his other wranglements about bodily labour and resting the seuenth day not the first day of the weeke are cleane dasht Mat. 12.5.11 Mark 2.27 3.4 Luk. 13.14 c. Ioh. 5.8 c. 9.6.7.14 Iren. lib. 4. ca. 19. howbeit that which was the first day of the weeke is now become the seuenth day and bodily labour was neuer altogether vnlawfull no not in time of the lawe as appeareth cleerely in many places of the new Testament Now iudge you or any reasonable man else in the world whether our arguments or his answeres be weake and ridiculous as for his Tradition the more he vrgeth it the more hee confuteth himselfe and confirmeth our exposition of these three places for if the Apostles deliuered the obseruation of the Sabbath by Tradition wee may not thinke they deliuered it to some Churches and not to other some and if they deliuered it to all without exception then was it deliuered to them of Troas to the Galatians Corinthians and the Churches of Asia if to them then can it not bee denied but that these places of scripture which I haue now disputed of doe cleerely containe the practise and continuall obseruance of the Lords day as it was deliuered to these Churches by the Apostles I will not vouchsafe to answere your Papists vnpowdered talke of Iohn Caluin that worthy seruant of God and wire-whipper of popish marchants out of the house of God onely this I will say that if Iohn Caluin were not a greater mote in his eie then Popish traditions are in ours he would haue spared this idle vagarie The next point is eating blood Act. 15 2â—.29 which was forbidden in the first generall Councell the circumstance whereof you haue well set downe howbeit your Papist still calls for Scripture whereby it may be shewed him that after the decree made at Ierusalem by the Apostles it was lawfull for Christians to eate blood which hee would neuer doe if hee were learned and had read the Epistles of Saint Paul with any diligence wherefore you may stoppe his mouth for this point out of these places which I haue here quoted 1. Rom. 14.2 3 6 14 20 c. 1. Cor. 10.29 Coloss 2.16 Timothie 4.4 Tit. 1.15 Now followeth the third poynt which hangs vpon Tradition and not vpon Scripture Leui. 28. 20 Deut. 25.5 namely the forbidding of marriage within degrees of affinitie as if Leuiticus were no scripture yea but may he say Deuteronomy is scripture too as well as Leuiticus yet the brother is there commanded to raise vp seede to his brother which in Leuiticus is made vnlawfull now tell vs why you receiue the one and refuse the other here must you call for the helpe of Tradition or els lie in the dust Alas good Papist you are much deceiued for the law of Leuiticus is morall and naturally ingraffed in the hearts of all nations as appeareth euidently in the conclusion of this law in Leuiticus from the foure and twentieth verse to the end of the eighteenth Chapter for if this Law had beene peculiar for the Iewes there is no reason why the Canaaniticall nations should bee punished so seuerely as there it is described for the non obseruance of the same as for the other law of Deuteronomy it is an exception or dispensation in that particular case for the common weale of the Iewes wherein God had a speciall care of the first borne and his inheritance againe being repugnant to nature and to the explication thereof twice told in Leuiticus Cap. 18.16 cap. 20.21 it might not continue longer vnrepealed Touching the example of the incestuous Corinthian which you propound it will sticke better to your Papists ribbes then he is aware of for how can that fornication be vnheard of among the Gentiles which a man committeth with such a one as hee may lawfully marrie if then this Corinthian might lawfully marry his mother in law verily single copulation with her could not be so abominable as that the very Gentiles could not abide it should be once named amongst them and if single copulation of the mother and sonne in law was so much abhorred then was it vnlawfull they should marrie and so the law of God in Leuiticus is confirmed and so indeed your Papist gently confesseth in these words the law of the Corinths would permit no such mariage as may be gathered out of the text c. The fourth poynt followeth namely that it cannot bee shewed by scripture thas it is a greater offence in a Christian to haue many wiues then it was in Dauid howbeit we read in Scripture that God gaue him his masters wiues into his bosome 2. Sam. 12.8 Rom. 4.15 Nulla lege prohibebatur August contr Faust lib. 22. cap. 47. Matth. 19.4 c. 1. Cor. 7.2 c. Eph. 5.31 if there be no transgression where there is no law as Paul saith then verily Polygamy being neither cleerely forbidden by any law nor reprehended by any Prophet from the beginning of the world to the comming of Christ it must follow that it was eyther no transgression at all in the fathers or a farre lesse transgression then it is in Christians whom Christ Iesus himselfe and the holy Apostle Saint Paul hath so manifestly instructed that nothing can be more euident Now touching the fift and last point of punishing theft with death it is confessed by your Papist that
supposed to be deliuered and commended to vs by none but them These words though they seeme plaine haue some doubt which somewhat quaileth the force of them for it is not so easie to know whether ab ipsis should be referred to Apostolorum or posterorum howbeit I say further that the Traditions that Augustine speaks of are of the same nature with that one Tradition which he treats of in those Bookes against the Donatists namely the not rebaptizing of Heretickes which though it bee not expresly and explicately set downe in the writings of the Apostles yet Austine himselfe knew it might be soundly deduced out of the Scriptures and so hee testifieth almost in euerie Booke of that worke against the Donatists Haeres 75. The other place which he alleageth out of Austine sspeaks of a Tradition indeed but it was a Tradition of the Fathers not of the Apostles and euen so saith Epiphanius of the very same tradition Ecclesia hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta the Church doth this by a tradition receiued from the Fathers In Philip. homil 3. And therefore Chrysostome went too farre when he sayth Ab Apostolis sancitum est it is decreed by the Apostles but though there be places of good shew in Chrysostome yet your Papist could say no more but that hee citeth a place out of the Canons of the Apostles and yet quoteth neither Booke Chapter leafe nor Homily where a man may finde it in Chrysostomes workes howbeit if hee meane the Apostles Constitutions he hath his answeare if those Canons that be set downe in the first booke of Councels I say they neuer sawe any of the Apostles but were begotten in later times as it is most cleere in the Canons themselues Can. 8. Si quis Episcopus aut presbyter aut Diaconus sanctum paschae diemante vernale aequinoctium ex Iudaeis celebrauerit abijciatur If any either Bishop or Priest or Deacon shall according to the manner of the Iewes celebrate the feast of Easter before the vernall equinoctiall let him be deposed If this had been inacted by the Apostles it may bee wondred how there could be such adoe about the feast of Easter betweene the East and West Churches the whole matter being so cleerely decided aforehand by the Apostles themselues Againe when we read in another Canon Can. 30. that such Bishops as came by their Bishoprickes by secular Princes should be deposed it is easily seene that some of these Canons were not shot off till the time of Christian Magistrates for Infidels I trow vsed not to giue Bishopricks neither was there euer any so farre beside himselfe as to seeke a Bishopricke by their meanes if this will not content your Papist then let him shew me some reason why these Canons are not set downe as a part of the new Testament but marked by Pope Gelasius for apochryphall Apud Gratian distinct 15. C. Rom. Ecclesia and then I will consider whether it bee needfull to giue him another answere Thus haue I runne ouer the choisest testimonies that hee could finde in all the ancient Fathers and Doctors for if hee could alleage all as it were with one mouth to speake for his blinde Traditions as here he bragges it is to be thought that either he hath chosē the best or els that he hath no iudgment as for Saint Iohns Gospell beside the Maiestie of the stile let him read Epiphanius against the Alogians and there hee shall finde some better proofes for the confirmation and defence of it than the testimonie and consent of antiquitie Nowe touching his Dilemma which hee takes to be so intricate a verie childe may easily dissolue it for wee doe not hold that any thing can make a damned hereticke but the stiffe and peruerse holding and auouching of such doctrine as is contrarie or inconsonant to the holy Scriptures whereof the Fathers are not guiltie neither will any Papist at this day stand in defence of such Traditions as agree not with the word written The Dialogue Sectio IIII. PRo Your learning I confesse is farre beyond mine yet if you will giue mee leaue to presse you with your own argument I doubt not but I shall compell you to make such an answere as may serue vs both Pap. Take your course Pro. You shall finde in Epiphanius Haeres 73. that the Apostles did ordaine that the Wednesdaies should bee fasted through the whole yeere except in the feast of Pentecost and that sixe dayes before Easter no sustenance should be receiued but salt bread and water Now if you doe thinke that these Traditions were left by the Apostles why doe you not obserue them and why doe you seeke to lay a burden vpon vs which you do refuse to beare your selfe Pap. You must vnderstand that from the first planting of the Church many thinges taught and deliuered by the Apostles haue béen altered and taken away partly by the Apostles themselues and partly a Then were their Successors ouer-sawcie vnlesse they had warrant in the Scripture so to doe by their Successors as the alteration of times and euents haue giuen occasion to alter or take them away for the good of the Church as the communitie of all things practised and allowed by the Apostles the office of b They were men as well as widow womē Rom. 12.8 Widdowes instituted by the Apostles the prohibition of eating of blood decréed by the Apostles the antiquitie did fast vppon the Euens of solemne Festiuall dayes and watch in the nights as the name Vigilia yet remaining doth testifie but when an abuse was perceiued to growe therby the watching was taken away the fasting being continued practised in the Church at this day August ad frat in Eremo Serm. 25. We might giue like instances of the Sundaies in Lent which were not fasted in ancient times with the Wednesdayes fast by you alleaged out of Epiphanius and many such like too long to repeat Out of which we gather with the Bée that the Apostles did ordaine many things in the Church which it is lawfull for themseleus c How prooue you their Successors might doe it and their Successors to alter or take away when time and occasion should require it for the good of the Church but if wée shall gather hereof that because the Church vpon graue deliberation hath taken away some d VVhat bee those things things deliuered by the Apostles that therefore Iohn Caluin or any other priuate man may at his pleasure reiect other some we shal sucke poyson with the Spider if I should argue with you that because you doe reiect the Wednesdayes fast which was e VVe heare you say so a Tradition of the Apostles that therefore wee may reiect the obseruation of the Sunday it would séeme but a weake argument although you could be content to confesse that the obseruation of Sunday is grounded onely vppon the Tradition of the Church which to doe were lesse shame
be there no openers or readers or lookers vpon Bookes in heauen or hell Thus Pope Gregorie is answered Cap. 12.32 yet that you may euidently see how insufficient this place of Mathew is to found Purgatorie vpon I will set you downe diuers sufficient and full answeres which take away the force of all Popish collections And first we may well aske what is meant by this world and the world to come For albeit men commonly take this world to be the space intermedial between a mans birth and his death which makes as many worlds as there be men or shall be and euerie world to haue a seuerall beginning and ending some past some present some to come yet if I should vnderstand it otherwise for the whole cōtinuance of this world 2. Pet. 3.10 till it bee dissolued in the great day of God and that same new heauen and newe earth bee made whereof the world to come shall consist the case would be cleane altered for then the Papists must not seeke for purgatorie in the world to come as they did before but in this world where it is impossible to finde it when the blind man in Iohns gospel saith since the world began Ioh. 9.32 was it not heard that any man opened the eies of one that was borne blinde I hope he means not that such a miracle was neuer wrought since the day of his birth but from the creation Mark 13.19 Math. 24.21 For so Saint Marke expoundeth Saint Mathew where he sayth there shall be great tribulation such as was not from the beginning of the world Againe when wee read elsewhere in Mathew Math. 13.39 that the haruest is the end of the world he doth not meane the day of euerie mans death but the day of Christs second comming 1. Cor. 15.24 for then shall bee the end saith Saint Paul And then the reapers that is the Angels shall gather the tares to the fire and the wheat to Christs barne so shall it bee Math. 13.30 Math. 13.40.49 saith our Sauiour in the end of the world Now then as this present world beganne when this heauen and this earth were created and shall continue till they bee melted with seruent heat so it is agreeable to reason and not disagreeable to Diuinity that the world to come should begin 2. Pet 3.7 Ibid. vers 13. when there shall bee a new heauen and a new earth as Saint Peter hath fore-prophecied But I will not hold your Papist to such hard-meat and therefore I answere secondly out of Marke who expoundeth Saint Mathew thus Mark 3.29 Non habet remissionem in aeternum Hath not remission for euer or Reus erit aterni delicti Guiltie of an euerlasting sinne or Aeternae damnationis Euerlasting damnation Here comes in Bellarmine sweating and tels vs that Mathew expounds Marke not Marke Mathew This is strange that a text should be expounded before it is written or the author extant but why must wee take Mathew to be the expositor of Marke Marry Quia Mathaeus copiosiùs scripsit pluribus verbis vtitur Because Mathew wrote more copiously and vseth more words So Glossa ordinaria and interlinearis or what other glosse or briefe draught soeuer may not be sayd to expound vnlesse it bee more copious than the text than which what can be more dotingly spoken but goe too saith he any thing else to that purpose Yes that hee doth for thus hee reasoneth Aut Christus dixit vt haket Mathaeus vel vt habet Marcus vel vtroque modo si primum veltertium habeo intentum si secundum tunc Mathaeus exposuit verba Christi Christ spake either as Marke hath it or as Mathew or both wayes if the first or the third way I haue my intent if the second then Mathew expounded the words of Christ How like you this reason Verily I neuer heard a worse for it is incredible that Christ spake word for word either as Mathew or Marke haue set downe and it is impossible hee should speake vtroque modo both wayes together vnlesse it were by way of exposition thus Non remittitur idest non habet remissionem in aeternum neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro id est reus erit aeternae damnationis He shal not be forgiuen that is to say hath not forgiuenes for euer neither in this world nor in the world to come that is shal be guilty of euerlasting damnatiō But let vs grant him his partition though euerie part of it be false yet may you soone see he hath said nothing for if the first bee true then Marke hath expounded it if the last it is so likewise if the second then wee haue our desire for then the words in Mathew haue no more in them than Marke hath set downe 1. Cor. 11.23 otherwise Mathew deliuered more than hee receiued of the Lord. Wherefore that he may be taken himselfe in the snares of his owne reason I will send it him home as a Proselite or conuert to dispute against his old Maister and to say to him Aut Christus dixit vt habet Marcus vel vt habet Mathaeus vel vtroque modo si primum vel tertium habeo intentum si secundum tunc Marcus exposuit verba Christi Christ spake either as Marke hath it or as Mathew or both wayes if the first or the third then I haue my entent if the second then Marke expounded the words of Christ A third answere we fetch out of the vsuall knowne manner of the Hebrew tongue which expoundeth one contrarie by negation of the other and contrarywise Psal 69.26 Act 1.20 Psa 69 29. Psal 109 13. Prou. 19.5.9 Esay 34 10. Mark 3 29. the negatiue of the one by affirming the other as for example Let their habitation be voide id est Let no man dwell in their Tents Let them be wiped out id est Let them not be written Let his wickednesse be remembred idest Let it not bee done away Againe he shall not escape or be vnpunished idest he shall perish It shall not be quenched day nor night id est It shall smoke for euermore And to giue one example for all Marke the Euangelist expoundeth himselfe after this manner for when he had said shall neuer haue forgiuenesse hee addeth for explication but is vnder eternall damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then being armed with so many examples in this behalfe and hauing Saint Marke to be our Captaine and as it were fore-man in our quest we say that not to bee forgiuen neither in this world nor the world to come is no more but to be punished and perish both here and there to be vnder eternall damnation to bee out of all hope of future deliuerance But what should wee labour to answere that that needes no answere for we confesse there is a doing away of sinnes in the world to come and yet you are neuer the neerer your Purgatorie
no more hurt vs then sacrificium mensae sacrifice of the table doth hurt him and sacrificium incruentum sacrifice vnbloody hurts him and not vs for the popish sacrifice wherein blood is really offered by boulefuls and drunke vp by the Priest if not by the people can hardly beare the name of an vnbloody sacrifice without some charitable glosse or interpretation if the fathers should call it the vnfleshly sacrifice I thinke it would do his carnall presence little good and therefore I cannot see how the terme vnbloody can greatly further him Yet see how this fond Papist prattles one as though these termes Sacrifice Altar and vnbloody were equiualent with Transubstantiation they could not vse the word Transubstantiation because it was not deuised before the Councill of Lateran a worthie deuise no doubt if the bodie of Christ be made of bakers bread for Transubstantiation is a turning of one substance into another but if the bread vanish to nothing and then the body of Christ come into the void roomes which the bread leaues behind it as the Papists hold at this day then must the word Transubstantiation giue place too as well as the bread and cessio or or substitutio giuing place succession substituting or some such new deuise or other must succeed it howbeit the old fathers wanted no words to vtter their mind they were as well able to speake I trow as Pope Innocent and the priests of Lateran But though nothing else be commendable in this Lateran deuise yet may we see by it that it was deuised onely for the Latine Church for transubstantiatio is Latine and such Latin as cannot be handsomely expressed in the Greek tongue and the last session of the Councill of Florence holden two hundred yeeres after this of Laterane giueth vs to vnderstand that the Greeke Church neuer yeelded to Transubstantiation touching the vanishing away of the bread and substitution of the body of Christ me thinkes when I consider of it I heare old Nakefield tell how he came to a wild colt that lay fast a sleepe in the field and being merrily disposed cut a round hole in the forehead of it like prima tonsura clericatus the first shauing of a clearke and then blew his horne in the eare of the colt so as it started vp suddenly and plunged out at that hole and left his kinne behind him euen so the Popish priest finding bread a sleepe vpō the Altar blowes the horne of consecration in the eare of it and makes it skip out at some hole or other and leaue his accidents behind it marry herein our good Catholickes goe beyond Nakefield for he would go no further to tel that the colts skin stood still as plumpe as it did before though the stuffing was run away but these men makes vs beleeue that the body of Christ creepes in at the hole the bread went out and so fils the vacuity of the roome that the accidents or skinne of the bread remaines still as well stuffed as it was before without corrupting or shrinking or any alteration in the world so as in the Sacrament of their Altar men shal see round thing yet nothing is round a white thing yet nothing is white a thicke thing yet nothing is thicke a heauie thing yet nothing is heauie a lumpe of accidents yet nothing denominated round white thicke heauie or any thing else by any one of them all blame me if these men passe not Wakefield by many degrees they say that after consecration it is the reall body of Christ yet if you breake it you breake not the body of Christ if you bite it you bite not the bodie of Christ and which is most absurd you may eate the bodie of Christ but you may neither bite nor crush nor grind it with your teeth All this may be seene in Peter Lumbards Sententious distinctions Lib. 4. dist 12. Est ibi vera fractio partitio saith he quae fit in pane id est in forma panis vnde Apostolus ait panis quē frangimus quia forma panis ibi frangitur in partes diuiditur It is true breaking parting which is done in the bread that is to say in the forme of bread whereupon the Apostle saith the bread which we breake because the forme of bread is there broken and deuided in parts See the impudencie of these men that dare say that is not broken which Paul saith is broken nay which say that is broken which cannot be broken for to say accidents and shewes are broken and eaten with teeth is too great frowardnesse and this did my friend Peter see well ynough and therefore he intreats vs not to thinke much of the matter 1. Cor. 10.16 saying Ne mireris vel insultes si accidentia videantur frangi cum ibi sint sine subiecto Wonder not nor insult not if the accidents seeme there to be broken seeing they are there without their subiect Wel wee are content to pleasure you in so small a matter but when you make Saint Paul to say that broken accidents are the communication of the body of Christ I wish you had beene better aduised but howsoeuer you rid your hands of vs yet Pope Leo the ninth and Victor his successour and Pope Nicholas the second and the rest of their seuerall Councels gathered together at Vercels Turon and Rome almost a hundred yeeres before you were borne or your Sentences written will not be so easily shifted of for Leo and Victor condemned Berengarius and Pope Nicholas at length compelled him violently to recant vnder this forme of words Ego Berengarius confiteor panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiā verum corpus sanguinem Christi esse sensualiter non solum sub sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri I Berengarius doe confesse that the bread and wine which are layd vpon the Altar are not onely a sacrament but the very body and blood of Christ and that they are sensiblie handled by the priests and broken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull not onely in sacrament but in trueth This is a Popes iniunction sitting in his chaire president in Councell in a matter of faith and doctrine which is of irrefragable authoritie in the Popish Church moreouer being a publicke confession it was drawen plainely without gards or welts and must be vnderstood literally Grammatically without shifs or sleights according to the simple purport of the words wherefore my good friend Peter when you presume to say thus Illa Berengarij verba ita distinguenda sunt vt sensualiter non modo in sacramento sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus sacerdotum frangi verò atteri dentibus verè quidem sed in sacramento tantum Those words of Berengarius are so to be distinguished that the bodie of Christ is said
betwéen vs I desire to know of you whether that sacrifice which was offered was the sacrifice of the Masse which implyeth transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Protestats communion the sacrifice of prayer or the sacrifice of thankesgiuing for if it was none of the thrée last it must néedes bee the sacrifice of the Masse and so is transubstantiation prooued Pro. e And why not the Protestants communion It might bee either prayer or thankesgiuing for both are often times in the Scriptures called by the name of a Sacrifice Pap. Thus doe I prooue that it was neither and first that it was not prayer it is manifest by the place of S. Austine before cyted De verb. Apost Serm. 32. where he maketh mention of the prayers that the Church made for the dead and of the Sacrifice which it vsed to offer for them as of two distinct things for there he saith that at the time of the Sacrifice prayers were made for the dead that the sacrifice was also offered for them That it was not the Sacrifice of thankesgiuing it appeareth likewise by the same Doctor by the place by me aboue cited out of his Enchiridion where he sayth Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viuentium relouari cum pro eis sacrificiū redemptoris offertur c. Neither must we denie that the soules of the dead are releeued by the charitie of their liuing friends when as the sacrifice of our Redéemer is offered for them the sacrifice therefore which the Church did offer was the sacrifice of our redéemer and it was offered that the dead might be releeued how can you call the sacrifice of thankesgiuing the sacrifice of our redéemer or how can you say that the church did offer the sacrifice of thankesgiuing that the soules of the dead might be reléeued for thankesgiuing is for benefits receiued and not for benefits to be receiued it remaineth therfore that this sacrifice of the church was f This is a worthy disputer that concludes for our communion as well as his owne Masse either the Protestants communion or else that it was the sacrifice of the Masse and consequently that the bodie of Christ is really in the Sacrament The Answere THe knot he talks of was so loosely tyed that it was no masterie to vndoe it but now we shall haue such an argument as shall prooue vnto vs the consent of all ancient Fathers and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church for transubstantiatiō these be great words yet notwithstanding when he grounds this doughty argument vpon Austine Ambrose and Tertullian concluding thereof that in all these ages the church did offer a sacrifice for the quicke and the dead I can take them for no better than the words of a man beside himselfe he knew well inough that Ambrose and Austine were both of an age for he hath told vs once or twise that the one conuerted the other and if he knew not that the annuall offerings of a widow woman vpon the day of her husbands death enioyned her by Tertullian in these wordes Et offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius was not the sacrifice of the Masse I must needes thinke his head was out of temper if these three Fathers had written in three seuerall ages it had been the least number that the word all could bee spoken of Aristot de caelo lib. 1. cap. 1. for we call two both and not all and therefore by what wit or common sense he could say all these ages of one age or two at the most if Tertullian had not been mistaken I cannot possibly imagine but for answere to these Fathers Contr. Collyr haeres 79. Epiphanius saith truely Deo abaeterno nullatenus mulier sacrificauit A woman did neuer in any case offer any sacrifice to God And againe Nusquam mulier sacrificauit aut sacerdotio functa est A woman neuer sacrificed nor exercised the priestly office Dialog cum Tryphon Whereunto adde out of Iustine Martyr that God receiueth no sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely of his Priests whereof it followeth that the annuall oblation that Tertullian speakes of was no sacrifice vnlesse you will say Epiph. haeres 49. that Tertullian was a Priscillianist or Artotyrite that allowed of Romane Priests and women Bishops to offer bread and cheese in Sacrifice to the Lord. And touching Ambrose I shewed before that hee offered not the verie bodie of Christ which is receiued of merite not of mercie how irreuerently soeuer it be handled but celebrated the communion of the bodie and blood of Christ ioyned with prayer and thankesgiuing so nowe Austine is left alone of whome I may say as our Papist taught me a while agoe namely that it is not probable that Saint Ambrose was a Protestant in this opinion and Saint Austine whome hee conuerted to the Christian faith a Papist howbeit you shall bee further instructed out of Lumbard Lib. 4. dist 12 that the ancient Fathers doe not vse the word Sacrifice and immolation in proper sense these be his words Vocatur sacrificium oblatio quia memoria est representatio veri sacrificij sanctae oblationis factae in Ara crucis It is called a sacrifice and an offering because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy offering made vpon the altar of the crosse And a little after Quotidié immolatur in sacramento Hierar cap. 3. quia in Sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel We sacrifice dayly in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remēbrance of that which was once done or of that Sacrifice which was once made Dyenis in his Hierarchy calleth it De demonst si 1. cap. 10. Ad Hebr. hom 17. De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a figuratiue sacrifice and Eusebius memoriam magni sacrificij a remembrance of the great sacrifice and Chrysostome recordationem sacrificij a remembrance of the sacrifice and Austine himselfe signum representationem sacrificij a signe of representation of the sacrifice wherefore we can agree with your papist no farther in this point than to confesse that the ancient fathers called the sacrifice of the body blood of Christ improperly a sacrifice because it is a memorial and representation of that one all sufficient vniterable euerlasting sacrifice which our Sauiour the last true Priest that euer liued or shall liue vpon the earth offered to God vpon the Altar of the crosse and so the ground whereupon this popish argument is builded is sandy and deceitfull Now let me shew you that prayers and supplications and prayse and thankesgiuing are the onely true sacrifices of the new testament and that the ancient Christians of the Primitiue Church neuer knew or hard of any other to this purpose therefore you must remember that God receiueth no sacrifice but at the hands of a Priest for so we learned a
being as the Angels of God is not there spoken of onely in regard of not marrying but also in regard of not dying Cap. 20.36 as Saint Luke expoundeth it looke the Bible ouer and ouer and you shall neuer read that Angels refused man or womans fellowship because they were married or accepted of it because they were vnmarried and single and therefore these vehement speeches of the ancient Fathers especially Chrysostome may not be racked to the vttermost but charitably and friendly construed to the best Chrysostome here in his vehemencie goeth beyond measure in reprehending the Christians of his time in their lightnesse went beyond measure in vowing yet the East-Church then neuer exacted any such promise or vow but left euerie Christian man and woman to their owne libertie Socrat. histor lib. 5. cap. 21. Illustres presbyteri in Oriente Episcopi etiam modo ipsi volluerint nulla lege coacti ab vxoribus abstinent nam non pauci ipsorum dum Episcopatum gerunt etiam liberos ex vxore legitima procreant Famous Ministers in the east yea and Bishops also are not compelled by any law to abstaine from wiues for many of them euen when they are Bishops doe beget children of a lawfull wife Well but what 's that charitable construction you speake of I pray you let vs heare it and so an end Content Chrysostome saith that such marriage is worse than adulterie and Austine saith as much yet Austine expoundeth himselfe presently in the same place De bono viduit cap. 9. saying Non quod ipsae nuptiae vel talium damnandae iudicentur daemnatur propositi fraus damnatur fracta voti fides c. Not that the verie marriages euen of such men as ought to be iudged damnable their deceitfull purpose is damnable the breach of their vow is damnable And againe Damnantur tales non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt sed quia continentiae primam fidem irritam faecerunt Such are condemned not because they did afterward enter into the state of mariage but because they brake their former vowe of continencie You see heere howe Austine expoundeth himselfe and therefore if wee charitably expound Chrysostome after the same manner we haue as good warrant as Austine can giue vs neuerthelesse to speake yet more precisely wee may not take the breach of faith to be so great a sinne as the giuing of it vnaduisedly beyond our strength if a man should vow to fast bread and water all the dayes of his life and afterward feeling his strength to faile should fall to better fare for the recouerie of the same there is no reasonable man that will find fault with him for breaking that yoake of bondage at the last but for thrusting his necke vnto it at the first Si quis castitatem promiserit seruare non poterit In Leuit. lib. 3 pronunciet peccatum suum saith Cirill in one place If any man haue promised continencie and cannot keepe it let him confesse his sinne But he saith againe in another place In Leuit. lib. 16. Oportet commetiri doctrinam pro virium qualitate huiusmodi qui non possunt capere sermonem de castitate concedere nuptias We must measure the doctrine according to mens strength and graunt marriage to such as cannot receiue that doctrine of continencie The Dialogue Sectio XXII EPiphanius Quae enim ad sacerdotium tradita sunt propter eminentiam celebrationis sactorum ea ad omnes aequaliter ferri putauerunt c. Those traditions which were deliuered peculiarly for the Clergie by reason of their a None more supereminent than the Apostles who were married men so was Peter himselfe supreminencie in the celebration of the diuine mysterie these heretickes would haue all men tyed vnto when they did heare that a Bishop ought to be vnreprooueable the husband of one wife and continent and likewise of Deacons and Priests for in truth since the comming of Christ the Doctrine b VVhere is it forbidden in all the new testament of the Gospell doth not admit into these offices any that haue married a second wife by reason of the excellent dignitie of priesthood and this holy c But either Churches obserued it not as appeareth in Tertullian De Monog church doth sincerely obserue yet doth not the church admit any into those Offices that is the husband but of one wife whose wife is yet liuing with him in the fellowship of marriage but him onely d Here Epiphanius is fasly translated that Epiphanius might not seeme vnreasonable that either was neuer married or that after the death of his first wife liueth vnmarried the church receiueth into the office of a Deacon Priest Bishop or Subdeacon which is especially obserued where the Ecclesiasticall Canons e There is smal sinceritie in such Canons are sincerely kept but thou wilt say vnto me that in many places Priests and Deacons doe liue in wedlocke but this is not according to the sinceritie of the Canons c. Thus haue I f You must search better or you will neuer finde it searched and as I hope made sensible the second mortall wound which as I sayd you haue giuen to your owne cause by fashioning vnto your selues such an imaginarie and mathematicall Church as all the g They acknowledged no other ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church did neuer know nor acknowledge whereupon it will follow if that out of the Church as out of the Arke there bée no saluation that all these reuerend Fathers and Doctors were heretickes and are damned Spirits or else that you be heretickes your selues The Answere EPiphanius comes in now to tell his tale and our Papist bearing good will to traditions englisheth quae tradita sunt which were deliuered those traditions which were deliuered and yet when all comes to all those traditions are found in Paul to Timothie and Titus and they are as cleere against the necessitie of single life in a Bishop as can be desired Paul saith a Bishop must be the husband of no more but one wife at once Cap. 3.2 Tit. 1.5.6 for that 's his meaning in the first to Timothie Now in the Epistle to Titus he willeth Titus to ordaine Elders in euerie Citie such as hee found irreprooueable the husbands of one wife c. euidently teaching vs that marriage was then no barre against being a Bishop or a Minister of the Gospell and so saith Chrysostome Ita pretiosa res est vt cum ipsa etiam possit quis ad sanctum Episcopatus solium subuehi In Tit. Serm. 2 It is so precious a thing that a man with it may be aduanced to the seat of a Bishop Againe hee translates qui abvna continuit which hath contained from one him onely that was neuer married adding the word onely to the text and peruerting the meaning of Epiphanius who thought it commendable for a man to renounce his wife ob
be short the same Father when he saith In fide liberum suae potestatis arbitrium hommi seruauit Dominus God hath reserued to man in faith a will free and in his owne power What doth he else but place faith in the free will and power of man than which nothing can be more contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel Hilar. in psal 118. neither is the testimonie of Hilarie and Epiphanius of much better regard for when the one saith Est à nobis cum oramus exordium The beginning is from our selues when we pray IdeÌ„ in psal 2. Againe Vnicuique nostrum libertatem vitae sensumque permisit He hath graunted to euerie of vs libertie of life and sence And againe Voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet vt velit Deus incipienti crementum dare This our will ought to haue proper of it selfe that when it beginneth God would giue increase And the other Epiph. heres 16. Possumus peccare non peccare It is in our power to sinne and not to sinne And againe Circa hominem est bona operari aut malas res appetere It it in mans power to doe good or to desire euill things I see no inckling of any grace but onely of the naturall force and power of mans will I will not charge these auncient fathers with all that may be gathered out of their writings but this I may say vnder benedicite that such sayings as these were the first grounds and foundations of the Pelagian heresie August contra Iulianum Pelag lib. 1. ca. 2. Pelagianis nondùm litigantibus securius loquebantur saith Austine the Fathres spake with lesse circumspection before they were combred with Pelagianisme The Dialogue Sectio XXI The doctrine of the keyes AS touching this point of doctrine the church of Rome doth teach none a But by your leaue you are deceiued other thing then that which our Sauiour Christ doth in the 16. of S Matthews Gospell in plaine and expresse wordes where hee saith vnto S. Peter Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shal be loosed in heauen and in the 20. of S. Iohns Gospell where he saith to all his disciples Whosoeuers sinnes ye remit they are remitted vnto them and whosoeuers sinnes ye retayne they are retayned so that you see the literall sense is for vs and the question betweene vs is of the right interpretation and true meaning of the wordes you b VVe doe so for the keyes of discipline are giuen Matth. 18.18 do interpret the binding and loosing here mentioned to be the preaching of the word of God whereby sinnes are forgiuen and loosed to the penitent hearers and retained vnto the impenitent and vnbeleeuers and we doe say that by these wordes our Sauiour did giue authoritie and commission vnto his disciples and their successors to forgiue sinnes not by their owne power and authoritie but by the power and authoritie of him whose commissioners they be wherein wee doe attribute no more vnto the commissioners in the forgiuing of sinnes than wee doe vnto a seruant that giueth possession of his masters land by vertue of a letter of atturney who although he haue himselfe no interest in the land at all yet hath he full power to conuey his masters interest therein to c He knowes to whom so doth not your popish priest whosoeuer his pleasure is to haue the same conueyed it pleased God to make water an instrument in the forgiuing of sinnes in the Sacrament of Baptisme and in the d VVe know no such sacrament this must goe among other your forgeries sacrament of penance to make man an instrument vnto whom wee doe attribute no more as touching the forgiuenesse of sinnes in the one sacrament then you doe vnto water in the other man who cannot see the heart giueth remission to all that pretend to be penitent and contrite but God who seeth the heart e And would giue it though your new-found sacrament had neuer bin forged giueth remission by the ministery of man to those onely that are truely penitent and contrite And thus much for the true vnderstanding of the question betwéene vs. Now forasmuch as the literall sense being wholy for vs the controuersie doth consist onely in the right interpretation let vs compare together your interpretation and ours that we may the better discerne whether of them is most like to be true f VVe build our faith vpoÌ„ no mans opinion old or yong doe you as best beseemes your pâ—ofession you doe build your faith herein vpon the opinion of Luther or Caluine or perhaps vpon the conceit of your owne braine and wee vpon the authoritie of the g Here is a goodly vaunt if the matter could be so caried away with bigge wordes this fellow would doe well inough ancient fathers and continuall practise of the vniuersall church through the whole world continued from the Apostles and remayning euen to this day To conclude for the vtter ouerthrow of your interpretation thus I doe argue against it If Christ did giue this authoritie of binding and loosing vnto his disciples onely and to their successors as I thinke you will not deny it then cannot the preaching of the word bee that binding and loosing giuen onely to the disciples and their successors because h As though a learned lay man had authoritie to preach the word a learned lay man who is none of the disciples successors may bind and loose in that sense that you doe interpret and open and shut the kingdome of heauen as well as an i VVe allow no such ministers ignorant and vnlearned minister Other doctrine then this as touching the forgiuing or retayning of sinnes the church of Rome teacheth not sauing that whereas in the sacrament of Penance temporall penance is inioyned we doe hold that the k Who gaue that power to the Pope I am sure it is more then euer Peter had or practised or bequeathed to his successors this is not to be found either in S. Matthew or S. Iohn Pope hath power to release alter or mittigate the same eyther in the life of the partie or if the partie fortune to die before the performance of his penance to pardon the same after his death For your ful satisfaction herein I l And I you to the answere wil referre you to a learned discourse thereof written in the english tongue by our countrey man Cardinall Allen. The Answere THe Keyes now remaine to bee scoured from popish rust and to this purpose wee may consider that Saint Peters keyes are first taken in hand Math 16.19 Iohn 20.23 Bellar. de pontif and then those keyes that were committed by our Sauiour to the Apostles yet if you will beleeue Bellarmine the first place out of Matthew doth but promise that Saint Peter should be a keykeeper I will giue the
c. and the other out of Iohn Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2. giueth the Apostles no more but Potestatē ordinis ad remittenda peccata Power of order to remit sins Thus must your papist either be at oddes with Bellarmine or else giue claues iurisdictionis the keyes of iurisdiction onely to Peter and his successors and to the rest nothing but potestatem ordinis and so consequently he must find other places besides these or else his keyes will neither open nor shut as he would haue them Wherefore let him consult with Bellarmine his master before he presume ouer farre vpon the doctrine of the Church of Rome and he will tell him that the keyes both of order and iurisdiction were giuen to Peter in these words Iohn 21.15 c. Iohn 20.21 c. Pasce oves meas Feede my sheepe and to the other Apostles in these as my father sent me so send I you and in these words to receiue the holy Ghost whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted vnto them and whose sinnes yee reteine they are reteined and here note by the way how solemnely Father Bellarmine tels vs that our Sauiour in these two places gaue Summam potestatem Chiefe power to all his Apostles Sed cum quadam subiectione ad Petrum But with a kind of subiection to Peter As if summa potestas and subiectio could possibly agree together or as if Peter himselfe receaued that same high power among the rest vsed it Cum quadam subiectione ad se ipsum with a kind of subiection to himself Such ridiculous absurdities doe men runne headlong into when they are ouer hastily carried away with their owne dreames But goe too let vs intreat the Cardinall to beare with his friend and to procure him a dispensation to vnderstand these two places which he citeth after his owne liking what hath he than to say Marry then I say our sense is more literall then yours well and what saith he else Nay we say that our Sauiour by these words doth giue authoritie and commission to his disciples and their successors to forgiue sinnes not by their owne power and authoritie but by the power and authoritie of him whose commissioners they be Yea but haue they commission to forgiue sinnes wheresoeuer they find it or else in them onely that God is willing to forgiue Their commission I trow is not vniuersall to all without discretion and to dreame who it is that God purposeth to shew mercy vnto is beyond the capacitie of any man liuing Papist to Protestant he that hath a letter of Atturney from his master to giue possession of and knoweth the man to whom he is commaunded to conuey his masters interest Rom. 9.18 but our master hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will hee hardeneth neither may your popist Priest presume that hee knoweth the mind of the Lord Rom. 11.33.34 and can find out his wayes and iudgements which be insearchable and so this silly papist heere confesseth when he saith that man giueth remission to pretended penitents which God who seeth their hearts doth not ratifie now then conferre this power thus exercised hand ouer head to good and bad as papists vse it with our preaching or publishing remission to penitent sinners and then iudge whether is most like to be the better And because he bragges of the literrall sense that it makes wholly for him let him tell mee how the generall words of the Scripture whatsoeuer thou shalt bind whatsoeuer thou shalt loose whosoeuers sinnes yee remit and whosoeuers sinnes ye retaine can be literally restrained to such onely as be truely penitent if this cannot be done without a quatefication let him not bragge that his sense is more literall than ours we preach remission to all that be penitent and so open vnto them the kingdome of heauen to the impenitent Rom. 2.8 and such as contentiously disobey the truth wee denounce indignation and wrath Esay 5.14 and so shut heauen open hell wide that their glory their multitude pompe may descend into it neither can this sense seeme strange to such as be conuersant in the writings of the Fathers Thus saith Tertullian Contr. Marcion lib. 4. Esa lib. 6. cap. 14. De Cain Abel lib. 2. cap. 4. In Oper. imperf in Mat. cap. 23. Quam clauem habebant legis doctores nisi interpretationem legis What keyes had the doctors of the law but the interpretation of the law Thus Ierome Soluunt Apostoli sermone Dei testimonijs scripturarum exhortatione virtutū The Apostles doe loose by the word of God and testimonies of the Scriptures and exhortation vnto vertues Thus Ambrose Remittuntur peccata per verbum Dei cuius Leuites est interpres Sinnes are remitted by the word of God of which the minister is interpreter Thus Chrysostome Clauicularij sunt sacerdotes quibus creditum est verbum docendi interpretandi scripturas The key-keepers are the Priests vnto whom the word of teaching and interpreting the Scriptures is committed But it may be our papist by comparison of his interpretation and ours will find out the truth thus hee writes you build your faith vpon the opinion of Luther or Caluine or the conceit of your owne braine and we vpon the authoritie of the auncient fathers and continuall practise of the vniuersall Church through the whole world continued from the Apostles and remaining to this day Heere is a tale told with all circumstances pressed downe and running ouer for hee might haue left out either vniuersall Church or through the whole world either continued or continuall practise or remaining to this day if he had not purposed to dazle vs with emptie wordes but is this the comparison he crakes of Now surely we must needs bee hard hearted that cannot yeeld to such comparisons can you prooue that wee build our faith vpon Luther or Caluine or our owne braine or doe you compare together our faith and yours when you compare the opinion and conceit of Luther or Caluine with the authority of the ancient Fathers Alas good Papist you cannot but know that our faith is no mans conceit or opinion and it is a shame for you to confesse that you build your faith vpon the authoritie of the Fathers or practise of the Church be it neuer so ancient I hope the fathers builded not vpon other Fathers that were their ancients but vpon the infallible word of God and what should ayle vs that we may not vse that meanes the Fathers vsed before vs you may talke long inough of Fathers and traditions and your toppe gallant Church of Rome as though no one Father sayd any thing for vs yet when you haue all done you must giue vs leaue ot we will take leaue to found our faith and religion vpon the written word of the Almightie Thus is your Popish fellowes Rhetoricke come to small effect and therefore he will now trie what his Logicke can doe Thus
house of God as for wresting the Scripture when any of you all can iustifie that the most witlesse Puritane in England doth wrest them more violently and ridiculously than your selues then will I be a Protestant no longer You Papists though your brawles bee endlesse one with another Canonists against Schoole-men Franciscans against Dominicks Nominals against Reals Thomas against Lombard Scotus against Thomas Occam against Scotus Alliacensis against Occam Peter Sot against Catharine Catharine against Caietan Caietan against Pighius Iesuites against Priests and Priests against Iesuites yet forsooth these dogs cats are of one Cage they are all members of the Romish Church but Protestants and Puritans being diuers names that differ not in the grounds of faith but in small points as Richard and Thomas or Iohn and Iames doe in colour and complexion and countenance they forsooth cannot bee both members of the same Church But what should I spend time with such a prater as dares face vs out that such a Religion as is now established in England was neuer heard of in the world before King Edwards time I am sure there is no other Religion established in England but that which is cleerely taught in the word of God brought hether first by Simon a Nicephor lib. 2. cap 4. Zelotes Ioseph b Ghildas of Arimathea Saint c Theodor. de cur graecor affect lib. 9. Paul the Apostle al of them or some of them watred stil on in the daies of d Lib contra Iudaeos Tertullian e In Ezec. ho. 4 Origen f Apolog. secunda Athanasius g Initio lib. de Synod contra Arian Hilarie h Homil. quod Christus sit Deus aduers gentil Chrysostome i Hyst eccles lib. 1. cap. 10. lib. 4. cap. 3 Theodoret all which ancient Fathers speake honourably of the Church and Religion and Prelates of Britaine Now whether this Church and this Religion so planted and so watred were the same that was restored and established in the happy daies of King Edward and Queene Elizabeth both Princes of blessed memorie it is so cleerely decided in the written word of God that the crying and yelling of our forlorne Papists shall neuer be able to perswade the contrarie Yea but Aerius you know as soone as hee denyed prayer for the dead was confuted and the first that impugned the reall presence was condemned in the Councell of Lateran and so were other of your opinion as they sprange vp in later yeeres This man you see will not giue ouer as long as hee can say any thing but goo too let vs not thinke much to answere these triflles Aerius indeed denyed prayer for the dead if Epiphanius mistake not the matter yet I denie that hee vnderstood such kinde of praying for the dead as the Popish Church vseth at this day Papists pray for the release of veniall offences punishable in Purgatorie but Aerius spake against the common errour of his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely that the forgiuenesse of incurable sinnes might bee procured to the dead by the prayers of the liuing if this be heresie then bee you heretickes your selues Touching the reall presence Bertram it is well knowne that Bertram wrote against it without any mans contradiction 400. yeeres before the Counsell of Lateran Aelfricus And so did Aelfricus Archbishop of Canterburie almost 200. yeeres after Bertram in a Sermon which was yeerely read in our Churches at the feast of Easter As for the time that followed in later yeeres after the Lat eran Councell wee say of it Luk. 22.53 as our Sauiour doth of the like time This is your verie houre and the power of darkenesse Thus haue I shewed you briefly but sufficiently when the great compound heresie of Poperie first sprange how it grew peece by peece till Antichrist was disclosed 2. Thes 2.8 I haue told you also how it hath been consumed by the breath of Gods mouth and when it shall be cut downe and wither As for Miracles and Martyrs Cath. 7.22 24 24. 2. Thes 2.9 Apoc. 16.14 the one prooueth you to bee th◠brood of Antichrist of whose lying wonders the scripture hath foretold vs the other namely Gods Martyrs they crie out for vengeance against blood-suckers for so we are taught in the Reuelation and such blood-suckers are you and haue euer beene as Master Foxe hath most truely set it downe to your euerlasting shame and confusion such Miracles as yours bee wee can shew none neither can wee make Martyrs as you can God giue vs all grace to keepe that way and path that leadeth and directeth to the Kingdome of heauen and graunt vs rather good Bishops without succession than succession without good Bishops that all of vs both Bishops and people high and low rich and poore one with another may glorifie God the Father of our lord Iesus Christ So be it Ierem. Cap. 49.10 I haue discouered Esau I haue vncouered his secrets and he shall not be able to hide himselfe Tertul. de prescript aduersus heretic Haereses de quorundam infirmitatibus habent quod valent nihil valentes si in bene valentem fidem incurrant Paraeneticum carmen Authoris ad Magistrum I. S. SI cupis ad superos per inania tecta domorum Altius horrendo scandere cum sonitu Consule Papistas hominum immanissima mōstra Qui scandendi alium non didicêre modum O scelus infandum nùm crudo sanguine pascit Italus ille suas Pontificaster oues Siccine pascendum vasto Polyphemus in antro Eructans saniem quam bibit ante docet Siccine scandendū ad superos docet vncta meretrix Quae tota innocuo mersa cruore rubet O fuge quid cessas meretricia desere castra Scandendique nouam disce tenere viam Eiusdem conclusio ad D. Doctorem Grimston medicum praestantissimum SI quid in hoc fuerit lectoribus vtile libro Non mihi sed cutae gratia danda tuae Et liber libri dominus paulò ante redemptus Libertus tuus est desijt esse suus Mortis serua tuo fit libera vita labore Libera vita tuo facta labore tua est Viuo igitur viuoque tuus viuamque per omnem Quam dederas vitam seu tua seu mea sit FINIS
sensibly to be handled by the Priests not onely in a sacrament but in trueth but to be broken and torne with teeth truely indeed but onely in a sacrament Your glosse sets the text vpon the racke violenlty drawes the members of it a sunder which are copulatiuely chained together in the text tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri distinguenda sunt quoth he alas euery child may see it cannot beare such a distinction and therefore either suffer your Popes text to stand still in force or else set downe plainely like honest meaning men that your Pope and his Councell haue grossely erred Howbeit the former part of the Popes words haue most need of a glosse for when he saith that bread and wine after consecration is not onely a sacrament but also the true body and blood of Christ if he meane the accidents they can be neither body nor blood if he meane the substance that 's vanished Lib. 4. dist 1◠if he meane substantia mutata in id quod facta est the substance changed into that which it is made that is in carnem sanguinem Christi Lib. 4 dist 11. Into the bodie and blood of Christ as Lumbard some where seemeth to tell vs then is it not both a sacrament and the true bodie and blood of Christ too but only one of them namely id quod facta est that whereinto it is changed and here you may smell Transubstantiation though it were not yet deuised but it stunke so that Lumbard himselfe could hardly abide it Ibid. for thus hee writes Si quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio If a man aske what manner of conuersion it is whether formall or substantiall or of some other kind I am not able to determine it Which is as much to say as I cannot tell whether the substance of bread be changed into the bodie of Christ or no for graunt me this antecedent substantia panis mutatur the substance of bread is changed the conclusion wil follow of necessitie ergo est substantialis mutatio a substantiall change so he that tels me that he cannot define whether the change of bread into flesh and wine into blood be substantiall tels me withall that he cannot define whether the substance of bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ These be the colours and shewes and accidents that haue bewitched a great part of the world and these be the glosses and interpretations that haue caused men to runne mad and at length to sleepe in their owne excrements but if you looke into the ages before Berengarius you shall find such as did write openly against these Popish accidents and formes without subiect and against all vntoward glosses in defence of the sacramentarie heresie as heretickes now call it without all controlement or contradiction which is a maine euidence to perswade that these reall conuersions and transmutations which be defended so stoutly and peremptorily in Poperie are not Catholicke but hereticall Iohn Scotus a learned man venerable Beds scholler taught the same doctrine wee hold at this day Iohan. Scotus almost two hundred yeeres before Berengarius so did Bertram Bertram a famous man in his time as appeareth by his booke De corpore sanguine Dei written at the request of Charles the Great and Doctor Tonstall witnesseth Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. that before Transubstantiation was concluded in the Counsell of Lateran it was lawfull for euerie man freely to thinke of it as he thought good and if this euidence be not stronge inough to carrie away the matter then would I faine learne how they dare stand against Pope Gelasius that tels them plainely that the substance and nature of bread and wine remaineth still Gelas contr Eutych Non desinit esse substantia panis natura vini There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread and nature of wine They tell vs verie demurely that by vertue of Christs prayer Luk. 22 32. the Popes faith cannot faile and that hee is to confirme his brethren yet herein they make Gelasius faith to faile and vtterly refuse to bee confirmed by him yet was it not Gelasius owne priuate opinion De Sacram. li. 4. cap. 4. Dialog 1 2 Ambrose saith of the consecrated bread and wine Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur They are the same they were and are changed into another thing Theodoret Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua manent enim in priori substantia figura forma The mysticall signes after sanctification do not depart from their owne nature for they remaine in their former substance figure and forme Chrysostome Ad Caesarium in Math. hom 15. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in illo remanserit The sanctified bread is worthy the name of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it Origen Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei per obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum encitur That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer according to that which is materiall in it goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the draught And if all these authorities be reiected yee shall they neuer bee able to auoide the words of our Sauiour Christ who after the ministration of the Sacrament in both kindes concludeth after this maner I say vnto you Math. 26 29. Mark 14 25. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drinke it new in the Kingdome of God vnlesse they can make men beleeue that blood may be the fruit of a Vine Let vs now returne to the examination of the ancient Father which our Papist imagineth to bee raysed from the dead What if hee should say saith he that the verie bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in forme of bread Many then say I hee should lye for Chrysostome saith In oper imper in Math. hom 11. In vasis sanctificatis non est ipsum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur In the sanctified vessels is contained not the verie bodie of Christ but the mysterie of his bodie But forasmuch as it is heere confessed that if this Doctor raised from the dead should answere that the bread is called the bodie of Christ in a figuratiue sense and that in Sacraments the signe is many times called by the name of the thing signified he doth cleerely in so answering determine the controuersie on the Protestants side what should wee labour further it being too too manifest that the Fathers doe answere so in their Bookes extant at this day and that in as plaine manner as can be wished Qui seipsum vitem appellauit Dialog