vtterly deny the office of Christ the foundation of our saluation therefore wee iustly deny you to be of the true church of Christ. Neither is your excuse to be admitted that you erre by authoritie of them who if the trueth had bene as plainly reuealed vnto them out of the scriptures as it is to you would neuer haue so obstinatly defended their errors but as they alwayes professed yelded to the trueth against custome prescription of time authoritie of councels or any practise whatsoeuer CAP. IIII. That he chargeth the sayde primitiue true church with sundry errors wherewith he neither doeth nor will nor can charge vs. I affirme that diuerse godly fathers of the primitiue church held sundry errors which the Papists holde not at this daye Also that the auncient church erred in som points and practise wherewith I will not charge the popish church except they charge them selues But that I should confesse as Bristowe sayeth That there may be a company which erreth not onely some principall members but also the whole body of it and which erreth obstinatly and moreouer which erreth the grossest errors that can be them 〈◊〉 no small number and yet the same company may be the truâ— church This is vtterly false I neuer made such confession neither can Bristow bring any wordes of mine that sound to the same effecte and therefore I here charge him before God and the worlde for a shamelesse lyer and an vngodly slaunderer As for the errors wherewith I charge either the auncient writers or the auncient church of Rome do followe afterward discussed in the sixth Chapter CAP. V. What reason he rendreth why they in those auncient timeâ— had the true church notwithstanding these their errors First repeating my confessions That the true church may erre that it hath erred in some articles wherein we erre in many other wherein we do not erre wherof it followeth plainly qd Bristowe that neither our erring nor these our errors no nor any other our errors are alone sufficient for him to depriue vs of the true church Marke this consequens of Bristowe some errors which the Papistes hold common with the olde church cannot depriue them of the true church ergo none other errors that they hold contrary to the auncient church are alone sufficient to depriue them This is popish logike And yet I will in this argument charge his conscience rather then his science for common sense abhorreth such reasoning from the particular to the vniuersall But let vs see if such reason as alloweth the fathers to haue had the true church notwithstanding their errors may serue the Papistes to proue them the true church their errors notwithstanding The reason I alledge that the fathers had the true church is because they held the onely foundation Iesus Christ and the article of iustification by the onely mercie of God Now sayth Bristowe who knoweth not that we beleeue in the onely sonne of God and in the onely mercy of God and that therefore wee looke not to be saued by our owne works that is which we did without him in Paganisme Iudaisme or Caluinisme in heresie or deadly sinne c. but onely by his workes that is by his sacraments and the good deedes that of his great mercy he hath created in vs in Christ Iesus c. therefore the same reason serueth vs notwithstanding our errors I answere your minor is false you beleue not in the onely begotten sonne of God because you beleue not in God Cyprian de duplici Martyrio sayeth Non credit in Deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleueth not in God which placeth not in him alone the trust of all his felicitie You place not your trust in God alone for you trust in your merites yea in the merites of others both liuing and dead and in an hundreth things beside God alone Secondly where you say you beleeue in the onely mercy of God it is false for you beleeue no iustification by the only mercy and grace of God which excludeth all workes and merites as the Apostle sayeth Rom. 11. Thirdly you says you beleue to be saued by his sacraments which in deede after a sort are sayde to saue vs namely not as principal â—fficient causes but as instruments and meanes that god â—seth to confirme his promises which proceede of his onely grace and mercy Fourthly you saye you beleeue to be saued by those good deeds that God of his mercy hath created in vs which plainly declareth that you looke not to be saued by the onely grace mercy of God purchased by the redemption of Christ but by such good workes as proceede from your selues although you ascribe vnto the grace of God that you be able to do them as both the Pharisee did which iustified him selfe by his owne workes and yet acknowledged God to be the author of them in him Luk. 18. And the Pelagians also affirmed generally that by Gods grace we are saued because God of his grace hath giuen such a lawe by keeping whereof wee might attaine to saluation But you cite S. Paul Tit. 3. to shewe that his mercie sacrament may stande together which no man denyeth yet can you not shewe that his mercie is so tyed to his sacrament that he saueth not without it For Abraham was iustified by faith before he was circumcised and receiued circumcision as a seale of the faith he had being vncircumcised Rom. 4. And where the Apostle speaketh of workes generally excluding them from being cause of our saluation you restreine theÌ„ only to works done before baptisme for this cursed glose you make vpon the text Not for any workes of * righteousness which we did before baptisme say you but for his mercie hee hath saued vs by baptisme But that S. Paul excludeth al maner of works done by vs from iustification the sentence following declareth That being iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life For grace and workes can neuer stande as a ioynt efficient cause Rom. 11. but the one of necessitie excludeth the other As for the receiuing of the Sacramentes is no worke of ours as you truely say but an accepting of the grace which God giueth The place Ephes. 2. which you â—ite to proue that we are saued by good workes done after baptisme is cleane against you if you had rehetsed the whole text You are saued saith S. Paul by grace through faith and this not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works which God hath prepared that we should walke in them The argument of S. Paul is taken out of the effect Good workes are the effect and aide of our iustification ergo not the efficient cause thereof And marke againe that hee saith we are saued by grace and not of
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
that is the circum 〈…〉 ised the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith as Aâ—raham in both the states was iustified by faith without the workes of the law although as Iames sayth he was â—ustified before men by his oblation which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith and obedience Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done but according to his owne great mercie 〈…〉 e saved vs by baptisme Bristowe asketh if I marke the temps Yea very well he speaketh of workes before faith And doth it therefore followe that works done after faith doe iustifie Saint Paule extendeth the saluation which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth and renewing of the holy Ghoste which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour vnto eternall life therefore it followeth that beeing iustified by his grace we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke which is the iustification of Saintes made white in the bloud of the lambe but with the filthy ragges of mannes righteousnesse Bristowe asketh where I learned to call the good workes done in the Church the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse Verily euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church All we are as an vncleane person and all our righteousnesse as filthy ragges For although God accept our workes that are done in faith and pardon their imperfection yet when they are obtruded vnto him to iustifie vs he abhorreth them as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes Apoc. 19. are good workes Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn 3. He that worketh iustice is iust where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man not of the cause No flesh is iust by workes of the law but by faith by which God maketh iust euen the vngodly man But how much better conference is it to know what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth which is the iustification of Saintes to compare it with other places of the same prophecie as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed howe the stoles of the faithful are made white with the bloud of the lambe and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ Ephe. 5. Touching freewill I saide we beleeue that man after his fall hath not free will no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the worde we are not sufficient but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apte to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptnes is of God To this Bristowe replyeth that naturall free will is not taken from vs nor naturall aptnes of will I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher and not like a flat Pelagian But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good which is none but bondage vnto euill except he be regenerate and then is his will framed of God in parte to good but not perfectly in this life as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies as for freedome opposite to coaction if Bristowe meane that by reteyning of free will I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint but not from seruilitie vnto sinne Whereof Saint complaineth Rom 7. Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e mainteined if Gods spirite haue any place that di 〈…〉 ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his owne will 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes which is 〈…〉 ery true but without working of Gods spirite our will 〈…〉 at h no aptnesse vnto any good thing Againe he saith 〈…〉 hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes that are freely gi 〈…〉 en and not of them that make a man acceptable as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts which are not freely giuen And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all working of Gods spirite euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ and not of speciall graces onely So that Bristowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose or matter 〈…〉 n question For I holde that we haue no aptenesse vnto 〈…〉 ny good of our owne freewill but onely of the grace of God Bristow saith I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent if we haue willes of our owne which I neuer 〈…〉 enied but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good before they be framed therto by Gods spirit is the thing 〈◊〉 denye About good workes in speciall namely prayer to Saintes 〈…〉 astinge merites Concerning inuocation of Saints I saide Purg. 451. wee call not vpon Saints because we beleeue not in theÌ„ for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee beleue not Rom. 10. To this reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place he saith first that Saint Paule did often inuocate call vppon the faithfull beseching them to pray for him which is a toye to mocke with an Ape for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte and could helpe his greefe but onely of charitie desireth their prayers Secondly he asketh where is any Scripture that we must beleeue in God onely Forsooth amongst many this shal suffice which is written in Ieremie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said the people beleeued God and Moses his seruant as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets and beleeuing in them which is to put our trust in them The like I saie to the seconde place quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people if they giue credite to Gods Prophets Credite Prophetis eius But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue belyke because of the preposition beth which is a miserable shift Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen to differ from the Latine and English phrase and especially from the sense of beleuing that is trusting in God which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature which is not God He quoteth also Philemon whose loue faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu and towards all his Saints where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ and loue to the Saints But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue he saith in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood Iohn 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ because he is
qui matrimonis contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt They saie that Elders or Priests which haue ioyned them selues in matrimony ought to be despised Therefore these catholique Bishops thought those Priests good ones which did ioyne them selues in matrimony so they made their Canon Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum c. If any man make difference of a married Priest as though by occasion of his marriage he ought not to offer and doth therfore absteine from his oblation let him be accursed Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane councell decreeth Cap. 10. Diaconi quicunque c. Whosoeuer be ordeyned Deacons if at the same time when they were ordeined they protested saying that they would be ioyned in marriage because they could not so continue if afterwarde they haue married wiues let them remaine in the ministerie because the Bishop hath giuen them licence But so many as haue helde their peace and taken imposition of handes professing continencie and afterwarde be ioyned in marriage ought to ceasse from the ministerie Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo lib 4. allowing the tradition of the orientall Churches for marriage of theyr Church ministers Aliter se Orientalium c. The tradition of the Easterne Churches hath it otherwise and otherwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome For the Priests Deacons and Subdeacons of their Churches are coupled in marriage but none of the Priestes of this Church from the Subdeacon vnto the Bishoppe hath licence to enter into mariage It were hard if there were neuer a good one among all the Cleargie of the East Churches since the Apostles time which haue ben married and yet are To conclude I trust it is apparant to the indifferent reader that such texts of Scripture as I alledged in those two bookes which Bristow vndertaketh in this confuse manner to confute were rightly applyed and without all violence or wresting doe proue sufficiently that for which they were called to witnesse And as for the popish conference of Scriptures wherof Bristowe once againe with great lothsomnesse doeth bragge how sound it is you may perceiue by this example taste giuen by him in this Chapter Wherefore I maruell much what learned ministers of our church these were whom Bristow affirmeth being in number more then a dozen and diuerse of no vulgar wittes by their onely hearing of your conference of scriptures to haue become papists By like some vagabonde irregular and vnhonest persons being depriued of their ministerie for their vngodly behauiour haue sought fauour among them by reuolting or at least counterfaiting to be reuolted to papistrie when they be of no religion commended by Bristow for their wittes but neither for their honestie nor learning CAP. IX To defende that the doctors as they be confessed to be ours in very many pointes so they be ours in all pointes and the Protestants in no point All the doctors sayings that he alledgeth are examined and answered The first part of his doctors generally his challenging words I confesse not the doctors to be yours in very manye points nor simply in fewe pointes nor all in any point of controuersie but graunting that for a fewe errours which you haue common with them in which you also farre exceede them as in prayers for the dead prayers to saintes some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies I affirme that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controuersie they are either all with vs or not one against vs. 2 A generall answere to his challenge declaring that 〈◊〉 neede not to answere his doctors particularly His first reason is because I sayde wee stande for authoritie onely to the iudgement of the holy scriptures which scriptures in the chapter going before he hath satisfied But how he hath satisfied them let the indifferent readers iudge And seeing the Papistes offer to stād to their iudgement in all things and wee refuse them not as witnesses vnto the truth in most things he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors His second reason is for that I do answere all mine own doctors for him if it be wel considered what is your consideration In that I confesse them to haue helde with you the very same points for which wee must bee condemned no remedie as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes What are those I pray you Bristowe answereth For why doeth he saye that we are against the honor of God against the offices of Christ but because wee holde inuocation of saints and worshipping of their reliques yes sir for other more grosse idolatrie and defacing of the kingdome priesthod and propheticall office of Christe and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossely then any of the doctors did Againe why doth he say that we are against the authoritie of Gods worde but because we hold with traditions as the doctors did I aunswere the doctors held with no traditions that were proued to be against the written worde of God they made not the decrees of Councels and Popes of equall autoritie with the worde of God as you do But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my wordes in which I say expressely I confesse with M. Allen that the old writers not only knewe but also haue expressed the value of our redemption by Christ in such wordes as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stande with them And yet on the other side saith Bristowe see what followeth immediatly Against the value of which redemption if they haue vttered any thing by the worde of satisfaction or any thing else we may lawfully reiect their authoritie not onely though they be doctors of the church but also if they were angels from heauen But what I pray you concludeth Bristowe of these two sayings His wordes followe immediatly So that nowe we no more neede to defende against him that wee are not contrarie to the doctors then that the doctors are not contrary to them selues As though it were impossible for men to be contrarie to themselues And yet I say no more of them then of the angels that they are contrary to the trueth in this point but that if they were wee might reiect them as lawfully as the angels if they brought another gospell Last of all he sayth Wee neede not defend that we are contrarie to our selues in the same For in what wordes the doctors speake thereof the same do wee Neither is the antecedent true nor if it were doth the argument followe For you will not saye as the olde writers doe that through the redemption of Christ a man is iustified before God by faith onely without respect of his workes or merites And where you vse the doctors wordes you either vse them in a contrary sense or else elude them with additions distinctions neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the olde doctors but inuented out of your owne
appeale out of Africa shoulde not be receiued into communioÌ„ of any in Africa What the Pope of seruile feare is constrained at this day to yeald least he shoulde be vtterly forsaken of all as hee is of most it is nothing to the purpose But I am moste ridiculous in Bristowes iudgement where I alledge Socrates the Nouatian speaking against Pope Celestinus for taking away the Nouatians Churches in Rome and counting it a point of forren Lordshippe not of Priesthoode Thus the Papistes defame such as write plainely against them Eusebius they make an Arrian Socrates a Nouatian euen as he diffamed Saint Paule in the last Chapter with much pricking of bodily lust But what cause hath hee to charge Socrates with the heresie of Nouatus He alledgeth none at al neither is he able euer to proue the crime In deed Socrates liuing at such time as the Nouatians ioyning in faith of the holy Trinitie with the Catholikes against the Arrians Macedonians and such other heretikes were not so odious speaketh lesse sharply of them then of other heresies Yet alwayes he accounteth them among heretikes As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani c. Euer since the time that the Nouatians departed from the Church Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church Likewise hauing spoken of the diuisions that were in the Catholike Churche he commeth to speake of the schismes that were among heretikes and nameth the Arrians Nouatians Macedonians and Eunomians Supr Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credite of Socrates nowe to the matter where Bristowe saith he counted it a point of forren Lordship to expell the Nouatians c it is false But he sheweth the cause why Celestinus coulde not preuaile to doe any good with them his wordes are Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopaiâ— iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominaiâ—m progresso But enuie tooke hold of them because the Bishoprik of Rome long before euen as the Bishoprike of Alexandria was proceeded beyond the bandes of Priesthoode into forren Lordship Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authoritie of S. Chrysostom he doth it not alone but other writers as much as he Socrates reporteth more of his seuerity toward his own cleargie theÌ„ toward the NouatiaÌ„s of whoÌ„ he was counted too much a fauourer therfore Socrates writeth that some iudged that he was iustly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum QuartodecimanoruÌ„ aliorum tulisset haereticorum Because he had borne with many Churches of the Nouatians Quartodecimanes and other heretikes Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alledged againste the Popes supremacie the decree of the Aphrican councell Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see should be called highest Priest or Prince of Priests but onely Bishop of the first see Bristowe saith it perteyneth onely to the Primates of Affrica and concerneth not the titles much lesse the primacie of the Bishop of Rome But the trueth is that it was made specially to represse the ambition of the Romane Prelates and therfore in the end of the Canon as it is conteined in the decrees Dist. 99. cap. Primae it is added Vniversalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appâ—lletur and let none no not the Bishop of Rome be called vniuersall By which it is manifest that his titles and authoritie also are commanded to be kept within their owne bounds and not to be acknowledged to haue any thing to doe in the Churches of Affrica by commandement or authoritie such as then was claymed But the Affricanes saith Bristowe as appeareth in Saint Augustines workes neuer called him Bishop of the first see but Bishop of the Apostolike see Although Saint Augustines workes can not bee witnesse howe the Affricanes called him alwayes yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristowe for him by this What if they neuer called him primate or Bishop of the first see for other inferior Bishoppes were called Bishoppes of the second see The councel forbadde them to giue any other titles of authoritie beside this Bishop of the first see it did not binde them that they should of necessitie call them by that title For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage of Alexandria of Rome of Antioche c. And that they called the Romane Prelate Bishop of the Apostolike see of Rome they gaue him no more authoritie ouer the Churches of Affrica then when they called the Bishop of Hierusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolike Thus my Doctours for any thing Bristowe can bring remaine constant witnesses of my side against the vsurped and Antichristian authoritie of the Bishop of Rome 2 About onely faith I quoted Ambrose Origen and Cyprian for iustification by faith only To this Bristowe answereth first generally that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith although before he was a Christian Catholike he did no good works But he cannot so escape for they speake not only of the first conuersion of a man but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man according to the example of Abraham and Dauid who both had good workes yet were not iustified by them before God but by theyr faith only And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe and all other Christians that were in his time that shal be in all times that the example of Abrahams iustification is the example of his and their iustification Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse and it is not written for him onely that it is imputed to him but also for vs vnto whoÌ„ it shal be imputed which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead who was deliuered for our sinnes and raysed againe for our iustification I wish that Bristow in the next conference that he maketh after the reading hereof would marke this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh that faith shal be imputed for righteousnes In the meane time I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification and not of newe conuerts only and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe conuersion onely but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation First Origen after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only bringeth in the example of the sinnfull woman Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere sed pro sola fide ait ad eam remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua iteruÌ„ fides tua saluam te fecit c. For no worke of the lawe but for faith only he saith vnto her Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee And againe thy faith hath
saued the goe in peace But also in many places of the Gospell we reade that our Sauiour vsed this speache that he saith the faith of the beleeuer is the cause of his saluation By all which it is cleare that the Apostle iudgeth rightly that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe See you not that iustification is not only to sett a man in free will discharged of his sinnes committed before baptisme but continueth with him vnto saluation Also where I saide that Origen answereth this obiection which the Papists make against vs for teaching iustification by faith only though Bristowe say it is false it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis c. but peraduenture some body hearing this may become idle and negligent in doing good workes if only faith suffice to iustification Is not this one of the Papists obiections Againe that this doctrine of iustification perteineth only to them that are newly conuerted to Christianity against which Origen sheweth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himselfe that he was righteous and boasting thereof Luk 18. that it perteyneth to all men that boasting may be excluded and that none boast in any thing but in the crosse of Christ Vides Apostol 〈…〉 non gloriantem c. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousnes nor of his chastity nor of his wisdome nor of his other vertues and acts but most manifestly pronouncing and saying let him that gloryeth glory in the Lorde c. and so at length sheweth that all this doth verifie the saying of the Apostle we iudge that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law which before he had interpreted by faith only whether they haue no works going before as the theefe the sinfull woman or whether they haue workes of the lawe without the faith of Christe as the Pharisee or whether they haue neuer so many workes and vertues with the faith of Christe as the Apostle Paule there is but one way of iustification for all men which is by remission of sinnes through faith onely Where Cyprian saith that faith onely profiteth Ad Quirin Cap. 42. Bristowe saith he meaneth that faith profiteth and without faith nothing profiteth I confesse in deede he meaneth all that Bristowe saith and more too namely that faith profiteth therefore workes do not profite vnto iustification as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth to proue his saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for iustice Gen. 15. By which Saint Paule proueth that Abraham was iustified by faith without workes and yet Abraham was not voyde of good workes Out of the Booke De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying That he beleeueth not in God at all which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only To this Bristowe answereth without shame that the Booke De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition coyned by Erasmus as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an vtter enemy to all forgery and supposition would himselfe counterfet a booke vnder the name of Cyprian But Bristowe doubting least he may be conuicted by auncient copies of this booke remaining in Libraries as no doubt but that he may for a second aunswer saith That this sentence is of it selfe Catholike inough For to trust Gods giftes as in the Catholike faith and good workes that he worketh in vs also to trust in Saints to trust in these I say as they be his is to trust in him onely I say sayeth Bristowe what neede we further witnesse or reason But Christe telling a parable against them that trusted in themselues that they were righteous telleth of a Pharisee that trusted in his woorkes as they were the giftes of GOD to whome hee gaue thankes for them Luke 18. This auctority of Bristowe is inough to discharge Pelagius Celestinus and all the rable of freewill men who trusted in nothing but that was the gift of God and so acknowledged by them in so much as they confessed that a man was iustified by the grace of God when he was iustified by his owne workes because God gaue free will and power to worke well also a law by keeping whereof men might be righteous Finally this rule of Bristowe will iustifie a man which putting his trust in Angels worshippeth them as Gods Angells yea which putting his trust in any of Gods creatures trusteth in him alone So that nothing is so singular but he can make it generall nor any thing so generall but he can restrayne it at his pleasure Now that Ambrose also extendeth the grace of iustification by faith only vnto eternal saluation it is manifest as generally throughout his commentarie vppon the Epistle to the Romanes so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. vpon these wordes of the Apostle I thank my God alwaies for you for the grace of God which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesu. Datam dicit c. He saith this grace which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesus which grace is so giuen in Christ Iesus because this is decreed of God that he which beleueth in Christ should be saued without workes obtaining freely remission of sinnes by faith only Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicatione c. that from the preaching of Iohn the lawe doth cease that only faith may suffice vnto saluation which is an abridgment of the law Likewise Exhortatione ad virgines Videtis mysteria c. you see the mysteries you see the grace of Christ the grace of the holy Ghost which is deliuered as it were by a certaine lot because not of workes but of faith euery one is iustified of the Lorde For as the falling out of the lott is not in our power but is such as chaunce hath brought so the grace of our Lorde is not as it were of the merite of hire but is deliuered as of his will This writeth Ambrose of al that are partakers of the grace of God and not of them that are newly baptised or conuerted only Againe in the same Booke he saith speaking of all men that attaine to saluation Hîc quidem luctamur sed alibi coronamur c. here truly we do wrestle but in an other place we are crowned I haue spoken not of my selfe only but of all men generally For whence should I haue so much merite to whom pardon is in steed of a crown What can be said more plainly to exclude the merite of good workes from iustification whereas the reward of good workes that is freely giuen to the iustified man by faith only both Ambrose and we doe neuerthelesse acknowledge 3. About Purgatorye Touching Scriptures expounded against it He sayeth I am taken in a vaine bragge because I beeing vrged by Allen to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead I bring only Hierom referring the reader to other places of Cyprian and Origen
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
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
scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed but 〈…〉 at onely scripture is sufficient and of soueraigne au 〈…〉 oritie to teach vs all doctrine perteyning to religion 〈…〉 d manners to faith and good workes Whatsoeuer 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard must bee examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone if it be receiued of Christians Secondly 〈…〉 e slaundereth me to confesse that all other euidences 〈…〉 e euident for them which is an impudent lie for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession Thus hauing altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controuersie from that I affirme to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith meÌ„ to affirme he taketh vpon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I haue alledged to prooue that 〈◊〉 al matters only scripture must be brought heard 〈…〉 nd first he quarelleth that in all mine answere to the arti 〈…〉 es I haue cited but one text of scripture for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say I had cited none 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authoritie sufficiencie was none of the demaunds wherevnto I made answere Only in the 4. article 1. demand which demaÌ„deth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past c. I answere the true catholike Church hath alwayes resisted al 〈…〉 lse opinioÌ„s contrary to the word of god fought against theÌ„ with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit which is the word of God and by the aide 〈◊〉 God obteined the victory and triumphed euer theÌ„ So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the Iewes Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitiue 〈…〉 urch froÌ„ time to time confute heresies by the scriptures and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by theÌ„ they are to be confuted c. To 〈…〉 is Bristow answereth that he findeth not that his argumeÌ„ts 〈…〉 gainst the Iewes were none but scriptures wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned because the quotation is a misse and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter 23. ver S. Luke declareth how he proued the whole doctrin of the gospel out of the law of Moses the Prophets Wherefore if Bristow had remeÌ„bred this he might haue found that S. Pauls arguments were the same against the Iewes of Corinth which he vsed against the Iewes of Rome For what other authority shold be vsed against theÌ„ that denied Christ beleue not his Epistles but the authoritie of the scripturâ— which they receiued Wherfore he vsed none other arguments but taken froÌ„ the authoritie of the scriptures Also he might find in the same chapter last verse that Apolloâ— who vsed the same arguments that S. Paul did proued by the scripturs that Iesus was Christ. If he will cauill that it is not said onely by scriptures let him accuse S. Luke which hath omitted other argumeÌ„ts necessarie to proue Iesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. saith Brist and you shal find that he vsed against the Iewes the testimonie of certaine men namely of Iohn the Baptist of his owne disciples This is as good an argument to proue that he confuted them not by the onely authority of Gods word conteined in the scriptures as if a man wold deny that a traytor was apprehended by the onely authoritie of the Prince because the constable arested him the Iustice made his warraÌ„t to the Iayler to receiue him Iohn the Baptist testified nothing of Christ but that which was written of him before in the scripture no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Besid that the testimony of the Apostles is not alledged for proofe of any doctrine concerning Christ but only for witnes of a fact namely that Iesus was risen again froÌ„ the dead according to the scriptures Furthermore Bristow willeth â—e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles where it is said seing the man also stand with Peter Iohn which was healed The gouernours had nothing to gainsay A man hauing such daily exercise of conferring of scripture as Bristow boasteth himself to haue might haue alledged tweÌ„tie places more proper for the argumeÌ„t of miracles But euen in the same place by him cited the argument of miracles serueth not to prooue any article of doctrine not conteined in the scriptures but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrin of the scriptures which was alledged by the Apostles to prooue Iesus to be Christ. The second text of scripture is in the boke of Pur. 6. where I say that other persuasion then such as is grouÌ„ded vpon hearing of Gods word will neuer of Christians be counted for true beleefe so long as the 10. cap. to the Râ—m remaineth in the Canon of the Bible To this Bristow answereth that the word of God is not only in writing but in preaching of such as be sent And therefore wee account it the word of God which we heare of the Church of God either in her couÌ„cels or in her doctors or any other For so said God to thé he that heareth you heareth me I answere that I spake not of the word of God only in writing but in preaching in councels or doctors or howsocuer it be the word of God but I say the only scriptures are a sufficient warant for me euery Christian to try what is the word of God what is the word of man For he that coÌ„manded vs to heare the Apostles ministers willeth vs not to beleue any doctrin which they teach if they haue not the warrant of holy scripture to proue vnto vs that it is the doctrin of God For since god gaue his word in writing al spirits prophets signes miracles were to be tryed thereby Deut. 13. The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching Bristow saith I alledge it of writing of onely writing In these words Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the verie hart that we require the authoritie of holy scriptures to confirme your doctrine hauing a plaine coÌ„mandement out of the word of God that if any man teach otherwise theÌ„ the word of God alloweth he is accursed First he chargeth me with falsification by changing But what change I haue made let the Lorde God iudge Indeed I haue drawne mine argument from the worde of God to the holy scriptures because they are the only certeine assurance of the word of God For how can I knowe certainely what S. Paul preached to the Romaines and other Churches but by the scriptures both of the old testament and the new which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise vnto saluation 2. Tim. 3 yea wherefore was the newe Testament written but to assure vs what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Therefore accursed be he that saith the newe Testiment is vnperfect and doeth not contayne in writing al pointes of the Gospell that Christians are bound to beleeue to their saluation But the scripture saith not that the Apostles did write al that they taught saith Bristow yes verily and that I prooue
by this argument The scripture testifieth that all which the Apostles taught was first taught of Christ himself before theÌ„ Heb. 2. but whatsoeuer Christ taught is written in the Gospel Luk. 1. Act. 5. Iohn 20. c. therefore whatsoeuer the Apâ—stles taught is written And therfore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition receiued by preaching iâ— bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures giuen by the same spirit The fourth text iâ— 2. Tim. 3. which I alledge in these words saith Bristow Purg. 410. All goodworkes are taught by the scriptures which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes First he taketh exception that these are not the wordes of S. Paul Indeede my wordes are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded vpon the scripture which Bristowe suppresseth But supposing that Saint Paul had saide so what a fonde reasoning is this saith Bristoâ— because one euidence proueth all therefore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely Sir if one euidence prooue all that which is not prooued by that euidence is not prooued at all But if to prooue that which is prooued alreadie by that one euidence you haue other good euidence no man letteth you to vse them Wherefore this is no fond kinde of resoning Maister Brâ—stow but such as the best Logicians do teach All good workes are taught by the scriptures therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures is no good worke But nowe S. Paul saith not that all good workes are taught by the scripture saith Bristowe Hee saith the scriptures are profitable he saith not are able or sufficient to teach all good works Againe he speaketh only of the worke of an Euangelist and not of all good workes To this I aunswere that immediately before Paul saide The scriptures are able to make Timothie wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesu but no man can bee wise vnto saluation but he that knoweth all good workes meete for a Christian man to doe therefore all good workes meete for a Christian man to do may be learned by the scripture And euen in this very text where he saith Al the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of trueth to disprouing of falshoode to correcting of vices to instructing in righteousnes that the man of God that is the Euangelist be perfect furnished to euerie good worke although you restraine euerie worke to the only worke of an Euangelist yet that I saide is necessarily concluded thereof For it is some part of an Euangelists worke to giue example in all good workes that are meet to be done by other men but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished c. therefore all good workes are taught by the scripture Againe when all the office of an Euangelist which consisteth in teaching disputing correcting instructing in righteousnes may be perfectly furnisht at the scriptures what can be more playne to prooue that nothing ought to bee taught for truth disprooued for error corrected for vice instructed for righteousnesse but that which is taught disproued corrected instructed out of the holy scriptures Seeing therfore that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead is not taught by the scripture it is no trueth To deny prayer to be profitable for the deade is not disproued by the scripture therefore it is no error To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture therfore it is no vice MeÌ„ are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead therefore it is no worke of righteousnes The 5. 6. texts I alledge together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures and trie the spirites to proue that the certeintie of trueth in vnderstanding the Scriptures is not to be had but by the spirite and the spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures Against this conference Bristow saieth Who euer alledged Scripture more blindly And why so I pray you because Christ saieth in the same place that Iohn did beare witnesse to the truth My workes doe beare witnesse of me Also My father who hath sent mee hee hath giuen witnesse of mee In dèed 〈◊〉 Bristowe could proue that Iohn Baptist Christes miracles or God his father did testifie any thing of him which was not before contained in the Scriptures neither had Christ giuen a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures neither is that sentence able to proue that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture But if the testimonie of Iohn of the workes of God the father do all confirme the Scriptures who euer alledged scripture more blindly then Bristow to proue that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the newe Testament the old when Christ sendeth the Iewes to the old Testament as a sufficient witnesse of him Concerning the triall of spirits Bristow biddeth me looke in the text by this we knowe a spirit of trueth a spirite of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles I like it very well For where shall wee heare the Apostles speaking but in their writings in the other holy writings according to which they spake all that they taught Wherfore here is no tryall of the spirites but by the scriptures And where he sayeth the Romanes doe moste manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles because no man can name that time the noueltie the seducer that they went after although it were true that no man could in any point shew as he sayeth yet the argument is naught seeing it is proued by the Apostles writings that they holde many things not onely beside but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles The 7. text iâ— Pur. 285. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes and a lanterne vnto our feere therefore wee will not walke in the darknesse of manâ— traditions The faithfull testimonie of Gods word only giueth true light vnto the eyes But the Prophet sayeth Bristow neither hath the worde only nor saith that Gods word is not but in writing for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles To the fiâ—st quarrell I aunswere that I alledge not the wordes of the Prophet but his meaning which Bristowe cannot denye to be the onely worde of God that giueth 〈…〉 ue light to the eyes That Gods worde is not but in 〈…〉 riting I neuer sayde or thought but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of Gods worde but in the Scripture I affirme 〈…〉 nd that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before conteined though not so clearely in the lawe 〈…〉 nd the Prophets Last of all you alledge and saye against Iudas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus saith Bristowe Pur. 210. In the law not so much â—s one pinne of the tabernacle was omitted lest any â—hing might be left to the will of man to deuise in the worship of God You shall not doe sayth the Lorde what seemeth good in your
in Christ the workes of one may helpe another I saide Purg. 198. I haue learned in the scripture that there is no name giuen vnder heauen by whiche they may be helped which are not helped by Christes death Act. 4. Bristowe asketh whether I haue learned that they which are helped by the death of Christe can not through his grace helpe and be holpen one of an other To whom I aunswere as I saide before to Allen I learne in scripture that the bloud of Christe purgeth vs from all sinne Iohn 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sinnes by the bloud of Christe as the Papistes affirme them to be which haue neede of other purgation I haue not learned that they can haue any helpe elsewhere Or if you say the bloud of Christ hâ—th purged them from all sinne why doe you invent another purgatory to purge them which is not the bloud of Christ for fierie torments according to Gods iustice are not the bloud of Christ shed for our redemption by which men are iustified freely Rom. 3. through which we haue remission of our sinnes through the riches of his grace Eph. 1. Another reason of mine is grounded vpon Allens wordes which saith that they which are in purgatory caÌ„ not by any motion of minde attaine more mercie then their life past deserued Whereof I inferre that their faith being a notable motion of the minde cannot profite them except the merites of other men should profite them without faith the Scripture saying that without faith it is not possible to please God Bristowe icsting at these iron conclusions letteth the argument stand and denyeth the latter conclusion affirming that by their faith they are in case to be profited by other mens workes which if it be true then is Allens conclusion false that they can not profite them selues by any motion of minde whereon it will followe that they cannot profite them selues by beleeuing that other mens workes may helpe them beeing destitute of their owne They cannot atteine mercie by any motion of minde Ergo not by faith Fulkes common argument of the Omnisufficiencie of Christes passion As though I defended the onely omnipotencie of Christes passion able to purge al sinnes and not the omnisufficiencie hauing satisfied for our sinns first he replyeth that an Origenist might likewise say The omnisufficiencie of Christes passion cannot stande with hell No sir for against him is not onely the wil of Christ but his Act also past hauing sufficiently onely for his elect which satisfaction he communicateth vnto them not in respecte of their workes but according to his grace whiche can abide no workes to ioyne with it in merite but onely faith in receiuing confirmed by the sacramentes in the persons of all them that heare his word and in them that cannot heare only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it so that no degrees proportions meanes or instruments wherof Bristow babbleth can make any merite to detract from Christs death the most plentiful free grace of satisfactioÌ„ for all our sins coÌ„mitted either before baptisme or after For this purpose I cited 1. Iohn 2. Pur. 42. to proue that if any man sinne after baptisme Iesus Christ is our Advocate with the father and the propitiation for our sinnes Bristow answereth That is true But that in playing the Advocate for our sinnes after baptisme he requestâ—th the like equal grace as he did in baptisme for sinnes afore baptisme where haue you that If you make Christes advocation a playing matter I will take no charge of you But to let passe your vnreuerent phrase what doe you ascribe vnto him in his office of advocate but onely to be a requester as euery common Saint is counted with you But you must vnderstande that the office of an Advocate or patrone is to pleade for his clientes and not to require only and what hath he to pleade for vs against the debte of our sins either before or after baptism but his owne satisfaction in his death suffering And therefore euen that which you aske where I haue iâ— I haue euen in the very same words that he requesteth as an advocate for our sins after baptisme the like and equall grace as he did in Baptisme for sinns afore baptisme For there I finde him a propitiation for our sinnes committed after baptisme which word I maruel your blind heresie could not see whereof I reason thus The same propitiation as course of grace working after baptisme that was in or before baptisme must haue equall effectes of grace But Christ is the same propitiation after Baptisme that he was in it or before Ergo he must haue the same effectes of grace working the satisfaction of our sinnes euen at the full Where I alledge Purg. 9â— that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all our sins 1. Ioh. 1. Bristowe answereth It is taken out of the same place and haâ—h the same answere to wit that his bloud doth worke more graciously in the sacrament of baptisme then in the sacrament of penance Of peâ—ance being a sacrament I wil not here dispute but folâ—owe the principall matter in controuersie whether all â—innes of the repentant after baptisme be as clearly purged as they were in baptisme by the bloud of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argumeÌ„t doth â—ufficiently proue it yet euen this very place is manifestâ—y to be vnderstood of the bloud of Christ purging all our sinnes committed after baptisme as well as before The bloud of Christ saith S. Iohn purgeth vs that is me you baptized Christians I doubt not of al sinne which if we say we haue not we deceiue our selues and the trueth is not in vs. The worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth make pure and cleane and so is the vulgar latine emundat Againe he saith in the same place if we confesse our sins â—e is faithful and iust that he may forgiue vs our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquitie If the bloud of Christ in which we haue forgiuenesse doeth purge vs from all our sinnes and make vs pure from all iniquiâ—ie whensoeuer we acknowledge them with hartie repentance what place is left for any other purging or clensing of that which the bloud of Christ and the mercie of God hath made pure and cleane That I cite out of S. Iohn being washed by Christ we are throughly cleane Iohn 13. out of Esay Although our sinnes were as red as scarlet they are made as white as snowe He answereth these places are euident of baptisme And therefore he admitteth that I sayd of them so clensed that they are made capable immediatly of the heauenly inheritance But why I pray you are they euident of baptisme because there is mention of washing in both places Is there no washing but in baptisme At least wise will you saye that the Prophet Esay preaching to the people of his age when hee
of our 〈…〉 nnes in baptisme but we are saued by baptisme as we â—re inâ—eoâ—fed by a deede that is sealed that is assured of â—aluation as Abraham receiued circumcision the seale â—f the righteousnes which he had by faith before he was â—ircumcised Ro. 4. and euen so he clenseth his church by â—he lauer of water not by the merite of the worke of bapâ—isme but in that he gaue him selfe for it that he might sanctifie it Eph. 5. After the same maner doth baptisme saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of the filth of the flesh â—ut the interrogatioÌ„ of a good conscience before god thoâ—ough the resurrection of Iesus Christ which presuppoâ—eth his death for satisfaction of our sinnes as his resurâ—ection is the speciall cause of our iustification Last of â—ll saith Bristowe he hath made vs kings priestes to God Apo. 1. If spiritual priests ergo to offer vp spiritual sacrifices as of 〈…〉 ur mortification Rom. 12. our almes deedes Heb. 13. both for our â—wne sinnes for the sinnes of other Here in the last point â—he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth but we shal haue reason confirmed by scripture because the â—xternall priest is ordeined to offer externall sacrifices for sinnes â—oth for him selfe for the people Heb. 5. But this cause is many wayes auoided for we are priests to offer vp the onâ—y sacrifices of thanksgiuing not of propitiation for sinne which cannot be without shedding of bloud Heb. 9. Secondly although we be all made priests yet we are not made high priests of which the text speaketh Heb. 5. which office one only can enioy at one time which is our sauiour Christ for terme of his life which is without end Thirdly those sacrifices which the externall priest offered for sinnes could neuer take away sinnes Heb. 10. much lesse our spirituall sacrifices of thanksgiuing for Gods benefites bestowed on vs his whole church I cited further Apoc. 7. These are they that came out of that great affliction haue washed their stoles and made them white in the bloud of the lamb therfore they are in the presence of the throne of god Brist saith this word therefore is referred to their comming out of affliction and so whited their stoles And yet this gloser saith he of me taketh it away from the affliction whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction O impudent and blasphemous heretike when the holy ghost expressely sayeth they made their stoles white in the bloud of the lamb darest thou open thy mouth and saye not only that that whiting was somewhat else then the bloud of Christ but also that it was nothing but that affliction so vtterly excluding the bloud of Christ But I forgot to conferre other places of scripture as he chargeth me Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sinnes to any other thing than to the bloud of Christ Let vs heare what whoso ouercommeth shal be clothed with white garments Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs ouercame the diuell not onely by the blood of the lambe but also by their owne patient confession or affliction vnto death Apoc. 12. The text is and they ouercame him by the bloud of the lambe and by the word of their testimonie and they loued not their liues vnto death Here is no cause of victorie but the bloud of the lambe and the worde of their testimonie which was the confession of their faith the onely instrumentall cause of their iustification and victorie who is he which ouercommeth the world sayth S. Iohn but he that beleueth 1. Iohn 5. Faith therefore the onely shilde to haue victory against the worlde and the diuell hath no power in it selfe to clense our sinnes but leaneth altogether to the bloud of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latine authenticall translation and to turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne martyrdom which is in deede by the worde of their testimonie or which they did testifie whereas by his translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for suffering of death as I thinke it is in no Greeke author sure I am it is neuer so taken in the newe testament But Bristow addeth that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Iesus when the Apostles were mortifyed for Iesus and sayeth they carryed the same about continually in their bodies that also the life of Iesus might also be manifected in their bodies 2. Cor. 4. I wot well wee must be conformable to Christ in sufferings that we may be partakers of his kingdome and glorie but doeth it therefore followe that our sufferings merit this glorie by his bloud or that his bloud without all respect of our merites doeth not alone purge and clense vs from all our sinnes After he had finished the cleansing of our sinnes by his owne selfe sayeth the Apostle he is set downe at the right hande of magnificence in the highest Heb. 1. Last of all Bristowe opposeth that Saint Paul sayth This our affliction although it be but short and light worketh vs euerlasting weight of glory exceeding measure aboue measure 2. Cor. 4. I answere it worketh not by meriting not by purging our sinnes or by satisfying for our iniquities but by making vs conformable vnto our head in passing by the same way of tribulatioÌ„s vnto glorie that he did euen as the way or steppes which leadeth vnto an high place of dignitie maketh not them worthie of the dignitie that must ascende by those steppes vnto it and yet it is necessarie for them that will come to that dignitie to sit in such places to take that ordinary way Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignitie so doeth affliction worke our glory Not to abridge any part of the glorie or merite of Christes suffering by which onely wee are made worthie of glory when all our sinnes being cleansed by his bloud wee appeare righteous before God not in the merite of our owne workes nor hauing our owne righteousnes which is by the lawe but the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ that wee may knowe him of the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable vnto his death Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth that seeing the bloud of Christ purgeth vs of all our sinnes and Iesus Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes committed either after baptisme or before that all other purgings and satisfactioÌ„s are ouerthrowen and so popish purgatorie remaineth without any foundation the purging of Christs bloud making vs most pure and Christ our propitiation being throughly only sufficient to reconcile vs. Secondly directly of Purgatorie it selfe prayer for the dead whether all the elect goe streight to heauen Afore Christes comming Limbus patrum His childish rayling on mine
I aunswere the argument is not of the onely naming of two but of the whole argument of the Apostle which is to proue that â—he fathers in participation of the sacramentes were equall with vs which were not sufficiently proued if hauing named onely two there were other fiue wherein wee are superior to them So that the naming of two is in this place the excluding of all other except those two Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen Wee read of the other fiue in other places Where I pray you Of Confirmation Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes Of Penance you read Iohn 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes I reade but of auricular confession and satisfaction I reade not Of extreme vnction you reade Iac. 5 of annoynting the sicke with oyle which by a speciall gift recouered health of body as well as remission of sinnes at the prayer of the faithfull I reade but of anealing men desperatly sicke which hath no hope of bodily recouerie I reade not Of orders you reade Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all although I reade that the Apostles were commaunded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him which were before ministers of his sacramentes and preachers of his worde but of Bennet and Collet coniurer subdeacon or masse priest I reade not in all the Scripture nor of Deacon in that Chapter Of Matrimonie both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ but long before in Paradise and is no more a sacrament of the newe testament then the raynebowe which yet with the couenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians But you confesse you reade not in those places that they are sacramentes no more doe you reade 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else This is a stale quarrell of the name of sacramentes which is not founde in Scripture although the thing signified by the name that is the seales of Gods promises and the name of signe of Gods couenants be often founde But your laste refuge is that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie which in antiquitie was by baptisme confirmation the complement of baptisme and the Euchariste and therefore speaketh not of the rest Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose which was to shewe that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace without a godly life woulde not serue to assure vs that God was pleased withvs it is cleare that the Corinthians among whome Saint Paul so long had preached coulde not bee without all other sacraments if any other were They had children to bee confirmed they themselues were married elders were to bee ordered offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled manie were sicke and some were fallen a sleepe to bee anealed And Saincte Paule saith expressely they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite 1. Corinth 1. Wherefore that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres and not knightes exercised in battell it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsiâ— heade and no trueth to bee verified of the Corinthians Secondly I say of the sacramentes in generall that they giue not grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought but after the faith of the receiuer and according to the election of Go◠〈◊〉 Corin. 10. Againe howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought if faith were requisite in them that receiue them This argument saith Bristowe holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion Why sir the passioÌ„ of Christ giueth not grace but to the faithfull and electe of God But faith you say is no work nor instrumeÌ„t but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde that the fire worketh vppon I will not enter into any philosophicall disputation with you whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon perhaps you thinke that water is moyster then ayre which error if you had no more cannot make you an heretike But I meruaile what cause you will make faith seing you exclude it from efficients except you make it a matter for the sacraments to worke vpon or else I know not what you meane by that your disposition lyke drienesse in woode which in deede is the thinne ayer more apte to receiue inflammations then the thicke water but perhaps you make it onely a potentia like materia prima for you adde that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought without the good motion of the vser onely so hee doe no part obicem that is so he doe not withstand the working as if a man be baptised sleeping and thinking nothing of it Neuerthelesse seing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient when you haue saide all that you can except you will teach vs newe gramer and Lògike You confesse the scripture sayth that by beleeuing and other good actions wee worke our owne saluation Phil. 2. as by way of meriting but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament neither doe I say that wee worke the effecte of any sacrament but that God worketh in vs according to faith which he giueth vs and his election You say further that the scripture teacheth that the passion of Christ giueth to our deedes vertue to merite where is that scripture written for vntill you shewe me where it is written I will say still to you as I saide to Allen the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie beleeuing stedfastly that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ of Christ Iesus without respect of our works Rom. 3. 4. But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue that I shew manifolde ignorance where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion and so graffed into his bodie is his holy spirite of promise which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritaunce who worketh in vs faith as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confirmation of our faith as was circumcision to Abraham when he was iustified before through faith Rom. 4. Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth turneth his heade away from the matter and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme as hee saith but in deede of
quietly coÌ„fesse that Augustine brought much superstitioÌ„ into this Island yet not the whole substance of Poperie but the principal most necessarie grounds of Christianitie where I affirmed that in many things the faith religion of the old Saxons was contrarie to that the Papists now do hold as by diuers monuments of antiquitie may be proued Bristowe with a double negatiue would haue it seeme impossible Because in S. Bedes storie and in all his workes c. we find nothing against the Pope nor against any one point of his doctrine What I haue found in S. Bedes storie and other monuments of the Saxons religion I haue set forth in confutation of Stapletons Fortresse As for that printed Saxon Homily which is against real presence transubstantiation which Bristowe saith was so soone so diligently called in againe it is abroad in the hands of many neuer called in that euer I heard of but hath since the first setting forth of it bene printed three or foure times in Maister Foxes booke of Actes and Monumentes In the tenth and twelfth Demands of Miracles and visions where I had cited the admonition of the Apostle 2. Thessalon 2. that the comming of Antichrist should be in all lying signes and wonders Bristowe asketh me what Scripture telleth me that after the reuelation of Antichrist there shall be none but feigned miracles Wheras I inferred no such thing vpon the text but shew euen that which he blameth me not to haue shewed howe to knowe seigned miracles from vnfeigned namely by the doctrine which they are saide to confirme according to the Scripture Deut. 13. Where I saide that Augustine De vnit eccle cap. 16. will allowe no miracles and visions for sufficient proofes without the authoritie of Scriptures Bristowe saith I doe shamefully abuse my reader for he saith expressely What so euer such thinges are done in the Catholike Church therefore they are to be allowed because they are done in the Catholike Church Yea sir but it followeth that the Church is not shewed to be Catholike because such things are done but as he saith there and else where onely by the Scriptures But Bristowe will haue me allowe all the miracles that Saint Augustine speaketh of because they were done in the Catholike Church As though Saint Augustine made that the sufficient cause to allowe any thing that was done or saide to be done without ioyning that they were done to confirme the Catholike faith Cyprians miracles could not iustifie his error In the Popish Church the sectes of Dominicanes and Franciscanes in their dissention about the Conception of the virgin Marie boasted both of their miracles yet Bristowe will not I weene allowe both their miracles except he will allowe both their opinions which were contradictorie Againe many things are feigned euen in the Catholike Church by peruerse zeale to confirme truth as the historie of Paule and Tecla confessed by a Priest of Asia Tert. de bapt Neither wil Bristow I thinke defend that al the miracles contained in the Alcoran of Frances Vitas patrum Legendâ—â—â—rea dormi securè sermones discipuli promptuariuÌ„ exemplorum Festiual and liues of so manie Saints as are written be all true and none feigned although they all serue to proue Poperie Wherefore it may be that euen some of those miracles that S. Augustine doth report might of emulation and vnordered zeale be feigned by some Catholikes to winne credite to the Church against heretikes That Luther and Caluine whome he affirmeth not able to heale a lame horse attempted wonders it is as impudent a lie and grosse forgerie as that Liâ—danus telleth that Luther was begotten of the diuell And yet there be diuers horseleaches among the Protestants that haue healed more lame horses then euer S. Loy did either when he liued or since he was worshipped of the Papistes as an excellent horseleach Passing ouer 5. Demandes which he doth only name In the 18. of destroying idolatrie he saith that to all that he said I say nothing but like a cuckowe You haue not destroied idolatrie but set vp idolatrie not waying saith Bristowe that I tell him according to the Prophets that we haue throughly conuerted all nations from idolatrie that we haue made them forget also the names of their idols In deede that which Bristow telleth me is of great weight and therefore I am belike to blame to wey it no more but as bare wordes without matter and winde without reason or authoritie Otherwise I thinke I haue proued that the Papistes haue conuerted fewe nations from Paganisme and them whome they haue turned they haue rather chaunged the idols then taken away the idolatrie or rather the verie names then the idols themselues seeing there was neuer an idol almost among the Gentiles but they retaine the idolatrie vnder the name of one Saint or other They had Castor and Pollux you haue Loy and George they had Februa or Febris you haue Fiacre that which Iuno Lucina was to their women the virgine Marie is to yours c. In the 19 Demaund of Kings and Emperors Bristowe saith that although I chalenge the Kings of the first 600 yeares to be of our religion yet I bring no proofe at all as though the proofe of the doctrine of saluation receiued in that time which we hold is no proofe at all But I 〈◊〉 not aunswered so much as that Allen alledgeth â—â—we Constantinus receiued the sentence of the priestes 〈◊〉 at Nice as pronounced of God What neede any 〈…〉 were to this we honour it likewise But Bristowe such I confesse there was praier for his soule according 〈◊〉 the error of his time And he addeth that there was 〈◊〉 for his soule with intercession of the Apostles in 〈…〉 ose honour it was offered at their reliques and their â—â—mple and all by procurement of Constantinus him selfe Euseb. in vita Const. lib 4. cap. 58. 59. 60. 66. 71. First cap. 58. there is nothing but that Constantine builded a Church which should be called the memorie of the Apostles Cap. 59. followeth the description of the same Church and his intent that the memorie of Christes Apostles by that sumptuous building should be continued alwaies among all nations Cap. 60. his purpose is shewed that he being buried there might be made partaker of the praiers that should be there made in the honour of the Apostles meaning the praiers made to God which manie moued by deuotion of that glorious memorie of the Apostles should make Cap. 66. is nothing but a description of a magnificent funerall pompe prepared Cap. 71. are those praiers which the people made for his soule that I spake of and beside that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The tombe of the thrise happie soule beautified with the name of the Apostles and adioined to the people of God and made worthie of the diuine ceremonies and mysticall liturgie or seruice and inioining the communion of holie praiers But of sacrifice for his soule with the
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
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
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned
so openly nor abundantly spredde in so many Nations as it is now And therefore Augustine in the place by Bristowe quoted Coll. 3. Die c. reproueth as well the Romane as the Affricane Donatisme whereinto Bristowe manifestly incurreth when most impudently he affirmeth that the olde fathers in their Creede beleeuing one holy Catholique and Apostolique Church meant the Romane Church as though the vnity holynes vniuersality and Apostolique foundation of Christs Church were nothing but the Romish Church Where I proue that the Popish Church is not in euery part of the worlde and therefore cannot be called Catholique in that respect Bristowe saith it is iumpe the argument of Cresconius and referreth vs for the answere to Saint Augustine Conâ— Cresc Lib. 3. Cap. 63. but the aunswere is such as he durst not sett it downe For Augustine confesseth the Church is not called Catholique because it is euery where for it was not in all places in his time but because it is to be dilated into all parts of the world whereas the Donatists helde it to be only in Affrica as the Papists only in a peece of Europa And therfore it is false that Bristow saith both the interpretations of Catholique giuen by Saint Augustine De gen ad Lit. imperf Cap. 1. Because she is vniuersally perfect and because she is spredde ouer all the worlde agree to their mother Romish Babylon for she hath nothing perfect neither was she euer nor at this day is spreade ouer all the worlde no not whâ—re Christ is and hath long bene named in Grecia Macedonia Moscouia Armenia Persia Assyria A Ethiopia c. in most of which places are the Churches founded euen by the Apostles themselues and yet neuer subiect to the Romish faction It is also false that we renounce the latter for we communicate with the Church of all Nations that hath communion with Christ and farther the Catholique Church doth not extende As for the names of Church Catholique baptisme heretike schismatike which he saith our Apostasie hath changed into congregation vniuersall ablution or washing chuser and cutter it is a most grosse shamâ—lesse lie for although we may be hearde sometimes perhaps and not often to interprete the Latine and Greeke tearmes by English wordes yet all that heare vs. or reade our writinges can testifie that we most commonly and vsually yea daily and hourely vse the tearmes of Catholike Church and Baptisme Heretike or Schismatiâ—e as often as occasion serueth to speake of those matters As for the Greekish names of Priest and Bishop if they be vnderstoode for such ministers as Saint Paule meaneth by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we striue not for them But when priest is taken for a Popish sacrificer and Bishop for a Baptizer of belles c. we like the names no whit better then the thinges Otherwise it is not the â—â—unde of wordes that troubleth our eares but the pestilent poyson that is hidde vnder such tearmes which our heart abhorreth In the 7. demande of heretikes where he chargeth me to affirme that whosoeuer of true Christianâ— were called heretikes without doubt are heretikes in deede and therefore Aerus Iouinianus and Vigilantius so called and counted by true Christians were heretikes in deede Of Aerius there is no question but he was an heretike although not in that matter Bristowe meaneth The errour of Iouinian we defende not but Vigilantius although baited by Hierome was neuer generally condemned for an heretike Howbeit that which I spake but in deâ—ision and imitation of the Popish manner of reasoning Bristowe taketh it as though I had plainely affirmed such a principle which was farre from my purpose Hierome and Ruffine were both true Christians yet either chargeth the other with he resie in their heat And what wil Bristow say of the two general Councels of Constantinople the 6. Nicen the 2 Will he not say they consisted of true Christians Yet both theâ— doe call account and accuâ—se Pope Honorius for an Heretike Will Bristowe conclude that therefore he proued so in deede He dare not for his life Hierome chargeth Pope Liberius with subscription of heâ—esie in Caâ—al Liberatus accuseth Pope Vig 〈…〉 us of Eutychianisme Cap 22. Yet Pope Syluerius by his Epistle accuâ—seth his successor Pope Vigilius yet are Hierome Liberatus Syluerius commonly accounted for true Christians and as for Liberius Vigilius Bristow date not for both his eares say they were heretikes Where I saide the Deuill stirred vp tyrantes Heretikes Popes Saracenes and Turkes to destroy the Church Who saith Bristowe that counteth Popes to be heretikes would so deuide Verily he that counteth Popes to be in an higher degree of impietie then particular heretikes namely to be autors of Apostasie Antichristes Where I obiect against this Popishe rule that the true Christians were of the Arrians called heretikes Bristow asketh whether they were of the Arrians commonly called Heretikes Yea verily as commonly as we are of Papists Bristow saith if we should in our talke writing say heretikes simpliciter as they doe we could not be vnderstanded to speake of them Yes in deede as well as they among their owne are vnderstood to speake of vs. And what other thing is ment by the name of Papistes but heretikes and traitours Antichristians and Apostataes enimies to God their Prince their country In the 8. demande beside that which is confuted in answer to the 3 motiue he denieth Franciscanes Dominicanes c. to be sects because a sect importeth a diuisioÌ„ And iâ— there no diuision betweene secular and spiritual Nominal real one sect another S. Paul coÌ„plaineth that Christ was diuided wheÌ„ one said I hold of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas I of Christ. And howsoeuer you wil now extenuate your schoolebrals contrary sects ech hath contended against other as for the truth of Catholike religion against heresie as the Dominicanes Franciscans Scotists Thomistes that I speake nothing of the Guelphes Gibellines the firebrands of the world In the 9. demand of the conuersion of HeatheÌ„ nations if sufficeth not Bris. the we hold the same Gospel which is taught in the writings of the Apostles which conuerted the first of al Heathen nations that were conuerted to Christian faith except wecan proue that the same nations are stil of our religion But he asketh if we wil be tried by Affrike for example whose religion we know by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Augustine Optatus c. Or if we haue any better moniments of any nations religioÌ„ he biddeth me to name it and let vs trie it betweene vs. How often haue I named the holy Scriptures the best and the onely true moniment whereby we may trie what Gospell the Apostles preached and into what faith they baptised the nations And as for those whome you name for Affrike although they testifie of some corruptions receiued and allowed in their time yet I dare take
them for triall of the greatest controuersies that are betweene vs of iustification by grace and not by merite of workes of the Popes antichristian supremacie of the Lordes supper of worshipping of images and many other controuersies As for that brabbling of conuerting of nations by them or vs it is not worth the while but a matter of meere contention which can not be decided but by triall whether they or we holde the true faith of the Gospell for into that were all nations conuerted that were turned by the true Apostles As for the conuersion of any nation into false Christianitie proueth not the conuerters to be Apostles But Bristowe bragging of their wonderfull conuersion of nations of India and Affrica which no man reporteth but lying Friers and shamelesse Papistes seemeth to denie that any were conuerted vnto false religion by any false Apostles or Heretikes And first where I saide there are people in Aethiopia which by circumcision and obseruation of the lawe declare that they were conuerted by the false apostles Bristowe opposeth the authoritie of Eusebius reporting the conuersion of Aethiopia to haue beene of the right stampe c. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so smal a countrie that it were not possible for one peece to be conuerted into true Christianitie and another part into corrupt That there are such people as I saide Munster in his Geographie of Aethiopia doth testifie As for the fable of their Emperours submission and the Abbots approbation of Poperie in all pointes may serue to play mocke holiday among the Papistes they can haue no credite among vs. As great a mockerie it is that Bristow abuseth the saying of Irenaeus concerning the Church of Rome in his time lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua c. In which alwaies of them that are round about hath bene kept that tradition or deliuerie of doctrine which is from the Apostles But the praise of the Romane Church of that time is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time which hath forsaken that tradition and embraced newe doctrine neuer heard of from the Apostles daies vnto the time of Irenaeus Where I say it is manifest that the nations of the Alanes Gothes and Vandales were first conuerted by the Arrians Bristowe replieth that in so saying I declare that I neuer read the ecclesiastical stories such is Bristows Logike It were possible I had read them and forgotten them But what could I either reade or remember in the places by him quoted First Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said that Vlphilas Bishop of the Gothes assented to an Arrian or neutrall confession giuen at Constantinople whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus which was Bishop of the Gothes and being present in the Nicene Councel had subscribed thereto he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice First of the Alanes Vandales here is no word nor in any of the places folowing of the Gothes it is said that Theophilus sometime their Bishop was of right faith and Vlphilas also before his subscription and consequently a fewe that were conuerted to Christianitie before the heresie of Arius But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Gothes that was conuerted and of the second also lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted There were two nations of the Gothes the one gouerned by Phritigernes the other by Athanarichus Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus sought aide of Valens the Arrian Emperor and obtaining it put Athanarichus to flight Quae causa fuit c. Which was the cause saith Socrates that verie manie of the Barbarians receiued the Christian faith For Phritigernes that he might shewe him selfe thankefull for his benefite receiued of the Emperor beganne to embrace his religion and to exhort his people to doe the same And for that cause manie Gothes which then to please the Emperors humour had addicted them selues to the Arrian sect vnto this time cleaue fast vnto it At the same time Vâ—philâ—s Bishop of the Gothes inuented the Gothian letters and as soone as he had turned the holie Scripture into their tongue he purposed that the barbarous people should learne the holie Oracles of God But as soone as Vlphâ—las had taught the Christian religion not onely to them which obeyed Phritigernes but also to them that were vnder Athanarichus the same Athanarichus mouing persecution put to death diuers of the Arrian sect c. The same historie reheâ—rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion At verò non istam c. But truely I doe not thinke that this was the onely cause whie the whole nation of the Gothes vnto this time is adioyned to the Arrians but that Vlphilas their bishop although in the beginning he dissented nothing from the Catholike Church yet afterward in the reigne of Constantius through lacke of knowledge he was present at the Councel held at Constantinople with Eudoxius and Acacius which were of the number of Bishops that had bene in the Nicen Councel And so being become an Arrian separated the whole nation of Gothes froÌ„ the Catholike faith This storie sheweth that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conuersion of the Gothes for Vlphilas the Bishop of those fewe that were before that time christened being long before peruerted into Arrianisme was the principall cause of turning both the nations vnto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme But Theodoret â—aith Bristowe lib. 〈◊〉 ca. 37. Who was a Catholike Bishop of purpose to take from the Arrians that vaine bragge of theirs sheweth that the Gothes were first Catholikes and not as you say first conuerted by the Arrians but only by false informations too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas being an other Balaam lead out of the way This purpose Bristowe dreameth of for no such appeareth in his wordes cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium c But my thinke I shall do a thing worth the labour if I shal shew to them that knowe not howe the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians And then sheweth that by persuasion of Eudoxius Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Gothes which before were lightened with the beames of diuine knowledge entred into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens and so deceiued the whole nation Where Theodoret saith nothing contrarie to other histories which shewe that Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Gothes that was vnder him vnto Arrianisme and after Vlphâ—las turned the other nation the was vnder Athanarichus vnto the same corrupt forme of Christianitie sauing that he is contrarie to Socrates and Sozomenus which affirme that Vlphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Councel of Constantinople in the daies of Constantius which reigned before Valens manie yeres That I said of them that were conuerted by the Nouatians and Donatists Purg. 337. Bristow vnderstaÌ„deth of whole nations requireth my histories autors to proue that I