English Puritan & Reformed

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

William Fulke (1538-1589) · 292,070 words · 1298 min

Large work readerShowing section 4 of 8. Corpus search still uses the whole work; source find opens the first matching section.

Section 4/8

without God's help, although they have no resolute warrant to call the contrary Pelagianism or heresy. And why have you no warrant? for rear you should condemn diverse of your chief pillars the scholemē for heretics, which hold contrary to that you hold, and yet you all hold that a man may dispose him self unto a certain aptness to receive the grace of God by the power of his free will. Where I said God is as much bound to congruity as to condignity: Bristow saith I immagine that if God do not that which is cōgruous, he doth against cōgruitie. Now good sir saith he, It is cōgrue to his mercy, to save the simple that are out of the Church, which is not cōgruus to his justice But good sir, I pray you dispute not so of congruine, y ^t you oppose God's mercy to his justice, there is nothing congrue to hismercie, which is not cōgrue to his justice, for unto whomsoever he will show mercy, he hath received for them satisfaction to his justice, in the person of Christ: yet Bristow hath another example for condignity: For God to save all the world, it is condign to the merits of Christ, yet he damneth innumerable, because it is condign to their own merits. By this it may be inferred, that God yieldeth not to the merits of Christ, so much as they deserve, because the merits of many men do hinder, as though y ^e merits of all men do not deserve damnation of cōdignity, & then what cause is this, why God giveth not to Christ's merits so much as they are worthy to receive, because many deserve damnation? This foolish sophistry riseth by reasoning from possibility of Christ's worthiness, to the act of men's worthiness. But compare act with act, and God saveth all his elect for the worthiness of the merits of Christ by his mercy: and damneth all the reprobate for the worthiness of their sin, by his justice of predestination denied by the papists, as it is defended by S. Augustine Bristow speaketh never a word.

In the 39. demand which he calleth Inconfessed heretics only: where I answering to the question of Allen Pur 421. 422. with another question or demand why it was revealed, first to the Arians in council, that the article of Christ's descent into hell was meet to be added to the Creed which was not in any symbol before. Bristow first surmising, as his manner is, that which was never thought of, at last confesseth this article to be added in an Arian Creed, Theodor. Lib 2. cap. 21: affirming that it was before that, in the Apostles Creed, but thereof he bringeth no proof nor witness. The judgment of the scriptures and not of men's opinions argueth heresies. Let the writings of the Apostles try whether of us is departed from the doctrine of y ^e Apostles.

In the 40. demand which he termeth, They never afore now. Where I said we agree with the most ancient fathers in the chief and most substantial articles of faith: Bristow saith, I confess his purpose. For Vigilantius, Iouinianus &c. did much more agree with them in such articles, yet were not of their church, could not be, and would not be. How prove you that Vigilantius was not of the Church, or would not be, although he dissented from Jerome? As for Jovinian, although we hold no part of his assertion in manner as he held, yet his error was not so great, that he might not be saved with it. Fewe of those fathers but had as great errors as that. It seemeth you would have no man to be of the ancient Church, except he agree with the ancient fathers in all their errors: if it be proved out of the holy scripture y ^t Jerome erred, in that wherein he dissented from Vigilantius, why is heto be allowed in that error, more then in other things wherein he and other of those ancient fathers erred.

Where I doubt whether Apostolici in S. Bernard • time were slandered: Bristow saith it is a poor and fowl shift, because Bernard himself is witness against them, as though it were not possible that Bernard might be deceived by miss • information, of them that envied such kind of men as they were.

Where I say it is certain that Panperes de Lugduno were slandered: Bristow saith I prove it not. They prove it themselves, being now and long since openly known to have continued in their unity from the time of John. Waldo, who separated them by his doctrine and example from the whore of Babylon, in Calabria, Mora 〈…〉 , & France. Where have been whole ci • ties or towns of thē, as Merundal, Cabriers &c. Wherefore it is an impudent assertion of Saunder, to say they were friers. &c.

In the 41. demand of studying all truth, Bristow affirmeth, that with friers and other catholics, all lea • ning had been packed away, if the princes had not erected a few petite schools, so he calleth not only great colleges, but also whole Universities lately erected. But is there any man so ignorant of the time of suppression of Abbeys, that he would think all learning was in friers and other papists? Where I say there was never greater store of learning in any age, then is now in protestants: bristow, maketh me still a child in the grammar school, which thinketh no man can be better learned then his master, saying: We that know your and the Catholic schools, can but laugh at your childishness. Why Bristow, doth no man know the learning of popish universities but you? I have seen and heard something in the most famous university in Europe, and yet I saw nothing, that Cambridge and Oxford may not be bold to compare with it, except it be in multitude of students. Where I speak of the tongues and rational sciences: Bristow is boulde to affirm. There are more declamations in Greek in one common school of the Jesuits, then in both your universities (I dare say being joined together. What dare you not say, that have determined to supply in bragging, that you Jack in learning? if you had named the number, we must perhaps have yielded to you, if happily our number of Greek declamations be not so great as yours. But to give you an estimation, by that I know of one, and one of y ^e lesser sort of colleges in Cambridge, for the number of Greek declamations, there are a dosen poor scholars of new erection, since her Majesty's reign which are bound to declaim in Greek every Terme, beside their weekly exercise of versifying in greek and latin, and their competent knowledge in the hebrewe tongue, required in them by their foundation, before they can be elected to those places. By which you may guess, that the knowledge of the laerned tongues, are not so dainty in our universities, as you think. Yea, he dare say they have better masters of art of two or three, teaching through out all Logike and Philosophy, then with us in seven years. This childish brag, whereof there is no trial, cometh of the spirit of pride, wherewith Satan puffeth up the Papists, that although in the multitude they be far inferior to the professors of the truth, in any kind of good learning, and for the best of them nothing superior: yet everyone of meanest knowledge, among whom I take Bristow for one, so swelleth in opinion of his learning, that he contemneth even them whose skill he never assayed. But their masters of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Poetry, Logike, Philosophy, do not count themselves learned in divinity, which they never studied, or better learned in it, then the professors of it, lacking the tongues, or eloquence, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, the Apostles. And what I pray you, do masters of other sciences among us challenge the knowledge of divinity which they never studied, or think themselves better learned in it, then the professors of it? But wherefore join you to Thomas Aquinas, who in deed lacketh both tongues & eloquence. S. Augustine, who was a master of eloquence, and not ignorant in tongues, & especially the Apostles, which were endued with heavenly eloquince, and knowledge of all tongues? But it is rudeness and barbarousnes (saith Bristow) in our country, to think ae mere grammar schoolmaster sufficient to be doctor of divinity, yea and a Bishop also, not for other quali •• es, but even for divinity. I cannot deny, but it were rudeness and barbarousnes so to think. But I utterly deny, that any mere grāmer schoolmaster in our coūtry is so preferred as you most slaūdeiously aff 〈…〉 me. For the person whom you prick at, is well known, to be excellētly well learned in divinity, & so to have been many year • before his preferment, as his learned labors, even against popery, are in hands of men to testify. But seeing you make it so strange a matter for a man, to be called from a grammar scholemaster to be a doctor in divinity: It seemeth you have not observed (for I know you have read all things) what Eusebius writeth of Origen's, who being a teacher of Philosophy, Geometry, Arithmetic, & other liberal arts, for his knowledge in divinity, was made a doctor of the Church. And why might not this our Bishop be taken out of the grammar school, as well as your White in Queen Mary's time? Is the same matter that was wisdom in you, become barbarousnes in us? But regnum gramma • icorū is post date, all are not children, as they were when this gear began: your tongues will not now serve, no nor your study of diuini • ie in Calvin's schools: come once to the Catholics schools (saith Bristow) and you will be ashamed of yourself, as many a one is, that • hought, himself at home, and was thought of others a iol • ie fellow. No no master Bristow (for I must requite your courtesy, seeing once in your life you call me master Pulke) we need not come to your popish schools, to see your learning, you bewray it sufficiently by your public writings. And as for y ^e kingdom of gramarians, I marvel why you scorn us with it, as though we had not attained to the kingdom of any other science or learning. But although we list not to make such large brags of our learning as you do, I for my part would be ashamed, if there were any knowledge y ^t in any age was counted good learning, wherein our side should not be found as forward in England, as any Papist in the world. As for the slanderous and witless railings, of the heretic Stancarus, preferring the Master of the sentence, before so many Luther's, Melanchthon's, Calvin's, &c. we esteem as much as the barking of a dog against the the Moon. Would God we might all meet in some University, where better trial might appear of both our knowledges, then wise men may gather by our boasting.

In the three and forty Demand of succession, where I said, there is no such succession of persons and places, promised, as the Papists boast of: Bristow saith, the saying of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. promiseth a continuance of Pastors and Doctors unto the end: which I confess, but yet is not the orderly succession of persons and places thereby proved, there shall always be Pastors and teachers in the Church, but it followeth not, that they shall continue in succession of the same rooms, in the same places, as the Papists boast of the succession of Popes. That he defendeth the offices of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, to continue always in the Church by succession, being a gross error, I will not stand to confute, because it is none of the principal matters in controversy.

Where I said, that if succession of persons and places were sufficient, the Greek Church is able to name as many, as the Latin Church, and in as orderly succession, Ar. 27. Bristow asketh, what of that, but only this, that they therefore may better claim the Church than we? Yes this one thing more, that by this my showing of succession in the Greek Church, which you cannot deny, Allen is bound to recant; and that the Greeks by title of succession, may claim the Church as well as you. But those heretical and schismatical Greeks (saith Bristow) can no more show succession than your false Bishops, which are in the sees of Poole, Bonner, Thirlby, &c, and yet I • ro • e, he will not thereby claim succession. 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 We may by as good right as you claim succession to the Apostles, and godly Bishop of Rome, whom you succeed not in doctrine. For neither have you any right succession, but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church, Boniface the third and his fellows. But Gregory saith, the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Church of Rome. But so doth not the Councils of Constantinople, which before Gregory's time decreed, that the Church of Constantinople should be equal in all things with the Church of Rome, the title of senioritie only reserved: because Constantinople was new Rome. Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen. li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop. 1. ca. 2. &c.

In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolic see, where I say it availeth not the Papists, that the Church was planted at Rome, by the Apostles, except they can prove succession of doctrine, as well as of men: Bristow saith: In proving the succession of men only, we do as much as the Fathers did. But I say that is false, for the fathers allege succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding.

In the 45 Demaund of changing, where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge, witnessing that Gregory was y ^e first that compelled Priests to live unmarried: Bristow answereth, that seeing I confesst, that he revoked his error, he made no change frō his fathers faith: Yes sir, although he revoked his decree, yet was the same received by them that came after him. But the story of that Epistle is derided by Cope, which affirmeth, that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. years before Vdalrichus was made Bishop. Thus these impudent Papists, when they can neither corrupt, nor wrest to their purpose, the monuments of antiquity, they will utterly deny them.

Whereas the Papists contrary to the old usage of the Church by Allens confession, do absolve before satisfaction: Bristow saith, both manners have been always used, and bringeth example of men absolved i • sickness, which if they recovered, performed their satisfaction after. But Papists absolve them that are in health before satisfaction, which is contrary to the old usage.

Where I tell them, that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregory, and Stephanus of Formosus: Bristow saith, not one Pope, hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine. It were hard for him to prove, that none of those Popes, all whose acts their successors disanulled, made any decrees of doctrine. And certain it is, that Gregory made decrees of doctrine, or else the Popes Canon law doth lie, all whose decrees, yea and books also, as containing heresy, his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned. But supposing (saith he) that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite, both in opinion and in some secrete writing, yet did he not change, nor go about to change the Romans into Monothelites. What meant he then to write heretical Epistles, but to draw other into his heresy? Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, plainly discover him to the Council, that he followed that heretics mind in all things, and confirmed these ungodly opinions? Con. Constantine. 6. Action. 13. And to what end? but between them to change the faith of the whole Church, both of the East and of the West. into Monothelitisme? But that you may see a plain contradictory unto Bristowes bold and lying affirmation, I will rehearse the words of Pope Leo the second, in his

Epistle unto the same Council, Act. 18. Pariter{que} anathematizamus &c. Also we accurse, the inuentors of the new error &c. naming them, & among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolic Church, with doctrine of Aposto like tradition, but by profane treason, did go about to overthrow the immaculate faith.

Yet against all this testimony of antiquity, Sander in his Monarchy proveth, that Honorius was no Monothelite, and that John 22. did not, as Calvin and we belie the story, deny the immortality of the soul, and resurrection of the body, neither was any such thing laid against him by his contentious enemies, but whether the souls do see God before the general resurrection, but he also denied that error &c. To this I must needs say, that Bristow is either an ignorant reporter, or an impudent liar, except he will say that Calvin or some of us wrote, the report of the Council of Constance, where he was accused and convicted by witness, to have denied the mortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Session. II. And in the next Session he confessed, that the Council of Constance was most holy, and could not err. As for the assertion of Pope Joan the feminine Pope, I refer the reader to Master Jewels reply to Harding, where he proveth it, by auncienter testes, than Martinus Polonus, howe so ever Bristow saw it in a marginal note, I wot not where, not in what Protestants hand, as he reporteth.

In the six and forty Demaund of our auncetors saved or damned, he maruelleth where my wit was, when I alleged against Canonization, y ^e example of burning Hermannus the heretic in Ferraria, where he was worshipped twenty years Apocryphally. But if he had not been canonized as you say, where was the Popes care of the Church, that so near him in Italy, he would suffer such gross idolatry, so long time to be committed and continued? Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negative the affirmative that he was canonized, which so long had been worshipped, without contradiction is more probable, seeing you hold that the Romish Church cannot suffer any ungodly usage, so long to be uncontrolled.

Where I said, the Papists cannot prove, that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles & principal Martyrs: Bristow asketh, if making of holy days, and to name them in diptychis among Saints, in the holy Canon of the Mass is not proof sufficient, of their canonization. No sir, if that be canonization, which your late Canons and practice doth allow: but if it were, I say, the Apostles and principal Martyrs had days of remembrance of their godly life, and doctrine, names in the tables, and at the celebration of the Lord's supper, before canonization was thought to pertain only to the Pope. As for our abrogating of Saints days, doth not disprove our Communion with the Saints, which is in consent of their faith, not in celebrating of their feasts. Concerning the canonization of King Henry the sixth: Bristow requireth mine author for a dilatorie plea, because he cannot otherwise defend the Popish corruption. Mine author is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henry the seventh, where I said we acknowledge those to be Saints, whose names are written in the book of life. Bristow like a black dog scoffeth at it, and saith, we might do well to set out that book in print, that they might correct their Calender by it. Or else the Churches declaration is the most certain way to know who are written in it. If none should be written, but such as the Pope doth canonize (for that is your Churches declaration) innumerable Papists, should have no place therein, and not only Papists, but the true Saints of God, of whom not one among ten thousand, hath been canonized. Where I say, the Popish Church doth injury to the Saints of God, that she doth not so account them while they live: Bristow saith I would be called Saint Fulke, by mine own industry, and that out of hand. Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scorns, to delude the texts of Scripture, which I cited, to prove that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saints, even in this life, not by their own industry and merits, but by the sanctification of the blood of Christ.

He is angry that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their God's, saying, we do the like in canonizing our selves, because we account our selves Saints, and true Christians, which is all one, and because I show, the emulation of the Bohemians, in solemnizing the memories of John Hus and Jerome of Prague, which differeth as much from Popish canonization, as their faith and religion differeth from Popery.

In y ^e 47. Demand of communion of Saints, he boasteth of increase of Papists in England, affirming, y ^t beside thē which are Catholic in heart and of their communion, there be innumerable of them reconciled, which he saith, to prepare the minds of his friends unto their intended massacre and rebellion. I suppose in deed, there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors: but yet not so many, but they may be numbered. But howe many so ever they are, I doubt not, but there are Christians of such number and power in England, as are able to give all the Papists both on this side the sea, and beyond it, as black a day as the Popes army found in Ireland, if ever they attempt to put in practice their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable devises.

In the 48. Demaund, where I show the fruits of the Gospel, being urged thereto by Allen, Pur. 241. to appear notably in the liberal provision for the poor of all sorts in England, and namely in the city of London: Bristow calleth it beastly impudency: yet is he not able to name any Popish city, that maketh such provision; but falleth into open railing, upon the corrupt manners of all the city, as though for the fault of many, (which yet God's name be praised, are not the most) the whole city were not inferior to Sodom and Gomorrhe in wickedness: In which place as being very populous, there are many offenders, so are they punished if their offenses may be known. But who so knew London in the time of Popery, and now also considereth the manners of the multitude, must be a very unequal judge, if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number, though he cannot see it all. As for the city of Rome, which Bristow compareth with Solomon, whose Priests were more excellent than the report that went of him: as by y ^e story and relation of them which knew it before this time, so by report of some which even in this time have visited the same, we have sufficient understanding, that without great reformation, it still continueth the mother of all abominations of the earth, and reaching forth y ^e cup of poisoned wine, unto such as seek her whorish familiarity, maketh them therewith so drunk, that there is no cause why Bristow should marvel why nothing confirmeth more our countrymen in Popery, nor alienateth them from the Protestants, than to go and see Rome.

The eleventh Chapter.

What gross contradictions Fulke is driven to utter against himself, while he struggleth against God's Church, and the doctrine thereof.

As in his whole reply, he hath drawn almost all y ^e arguments and authorities, which I used in those two treatises, unto other ends and purposes, than for which I brought them: so to make a show of Contradiction, he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places, & compareth them together, to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth, to think that I affirm and deny mere repugnancies, without any possibility to reconcile them. But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place, in which they are written, I hope there are not many of so mean judgment, but they will acknowledge, they are rather the cavils of Bristow, than the contradictions of Fulke.

The first Contradiction he noteth, that I say, Art 96. You are never able to answer the arguments that Peter was never at Rome. And thē where is the Apostolic see? &c. And thē on the conirarie side: the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles, it was an Apostolic Church. For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I answer: In the first part he falsifieth my words, which are these: You are never able to answer the arguments, that are brought to prove that Peter was never Bishop at Rome, and then where is all your brags of Apostolic see and succession? &c. The Church of Rome might be an Apostolic see, though Peter was never there: but all your brags of Apostolic see, and succession are vain, if Peter was never Bishop of Rome.

The second: Those ancient Fathers did appeal to the judgment of the Church of Rome against all heresies, and among the Catholic Churches, especially named the Church of Rome, because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the brag of the Roman faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine, but patched by him, yet if I grant the sense and words to be, as he hath forged them, they are not contradictory to the latter proposition. For heretics may brag of that which Catholics use to do: and yet not be Catholics.

The third: It had by succession (speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉 ) retained even until their days, that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Pur. 374. Contra: She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishops, except so many schisms as they write of, be orderly successions. By the time of these Fathers (saith Bristow) there had been four schisms. Ar. 85. Aunswere. In the first proposition I speak of Tertullian's time and succession of doctrine, and name succession simply. In the second proposition I speak of the whole time until our days, and of succession of persons, and of orderly succession: therefore no contradiction.

The fourth: It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles, it retained by succession that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Pur. 373. 374. Contra: he chargeth it with sundry errors here cap. 3. & 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianism. P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes, and eight Popes for the supremacy. I might answer, that the charging of the Popes, chargeth not the Church. but in the first proposition, I spake of the Church of Rome, in the time of Irenaeus, and Tertullian, holding the doctrine of the Apostles, contrary to those heresies against which they write.

The fifth: It was a true Church, and Apostolic Church, a faithful Church, true and Apostolic faith and religion have dwelled in her. Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra: The Church of Rome never preached the truth. She never had since she first arose the ministering of sacraments according to Christ's institution. The true Catholic Church hath overthrown heresies of all sortes. But the Popish Church was never able to encounter with heretics. Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns, but never did good to Christians. I am able to prove that the primitive Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist. Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27.

The latter part of this contradiction, with as many falsifications as there be quotations, do sufficiently declare, that in all those places, I speak of the Popish Church of Rome that now is, and not of the true Church which of old time was at Rome. Yet to give the reader a taste of his falsification of my words Ar. 106. which he rehearseth thus. Rome may be a nurse, &c. in truth they are these: Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of man's traditions, in stead of the milk of God's word, and will rather see them famish than they should taste of God's word, may well be a nurse of Antichristians, but never did good unto Christians.

The sixth: The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy, whereof the whore beareth a cup full, out of which all nations have drunk. Ar. 102. 38. Even from the Apostles • ime the devil never left to set in his foot, for his son Antichrists dominion, until he had placed him in the temple of God, and prepared the wide world for his walk, and then came the general defection. Pur. 287. Contra: all nations never consented to the doctrine of the Papists. For it hath been often said, the Greek Church and (all) other Oriental Churches (of Assa and Africa) never received the Popish religion, in many chief points, and specially in acknowledging the Popes authority, they will not unto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholic, nor her authority to be lawful. Ar. 38. 16 33. 34.

These places being both full of falsifications, yet if they had been in so many words set down by me, employ no contradiction. For it may be, that all n • tions, (meaning as the scripture, whose words I cite Apoc. 18. not all of every nation, but some of all nations) have drunk of the whores cup, and yet never received her religion in all things. And the general defection is meant of that great apostasy that S. Paul speaketh of, in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ, though they fall not all to the Pope. For many are fallen to Mahomet, many revolted to idolatry, many to other heresies beside Popery.

The 7. The religion of Papists came in, and prevailed in the yere of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his Antichristiā exaltatiō to wit, Boniface y ^e third of Phocas the Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the Church. Ar. 36. Contra in the same place: Because you speak of the first entering of Popish religion, which dependeth chiefly upon the Popes authority: it first began to advance it self in Victor, about the year of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here? Popish religion in one piece first began to advance it self Anno 200. and after came in and prevailed, Anno 607.

The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy. Even in the Apostles time, and from that time, in all times, when so ever, and where so ever was any piece of myste or dark corner, there were the steppes of your walk. It may be a shame for you Papists, to leave and condemn for heresy, all that is true in the Fathers writings, and agreeable to the scriptures. Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra: Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papists, from the great heresies, and open adversaries, that sought to beat down the chief foundations of Christian faith, as the Valentinians, Marcionistes, Manichees, Arians, Sabellians, and such like monsters. Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction, which is not of the religion of the Papists, but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the ancient Fathers, which among the Papists are grown to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians, Marcionistes, &c. And yet there can be no contradiction, where the subjects of both propositions are not all one. But here the one is of the Popish Church (which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan) the other is of the religion of Papists. The Papists by communion of the devils Church, communicate with all heresies.

The 9. We say not that the religion of Papists came in soudenly, but that it entered by small degrees at the first: and therefore • a •• esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies, not preached against, winked at, because it had a show of Piety and Charity, and at length allowed of Augustine and others, who followed the common errors of their time. Specially when a general defection, and departing from the faith was foreshowed, what marvel were it, if none cold preach against it as it first entered? Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra: The Church of Christ in such places as she is, suffereth no man damnablie abusing her religion, without open reprehension. Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries, as that I should say, The religion of papists was not preached against &c. Winked at &c. Allowed of Augustine &c. For I never said so of the whole religion of papists, but of some few errors budding up in ancient times. But both Ar. 36. where I ask What marvel &c. as an objection, I do nevertheless show who preached against the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome, which yet tended not to a damnable error; & Ar. 38. I affirm, there was both preaching, teaching, and writing against it.

The 10 The true, catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions, contrary to the word of God, as her dewty was, and fought against them, and obtained the victory, and triumphed over them. Ar. 11. Contra: In those ancient times they of the true Church, did not always weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God: but if heretics had anything that seemed to have a show of piety or charity, they would draw it into use. So they took into the Church of Christ, many abuses and corruptions, until at the length, An. 607. the religion of the papists prevailed. And since that time that devilish heresy hath always increased in error until the year 1414. Pur. 419. Ar. 35. 36. The former proposition is directly spoken and meant by me, of heresies against the truth, and other articles of faith: That which is mine in the latter patchery and falsification, is spoken of small errors and idle ceremonies.

The 11 That blasphemous heresy of purgatory, which is most blasphemous against Christ, against the blood of Christ, against his merits and satisfaction for our sins, and against God's unspeakable mercies: and occasion of most licentious wickedness in all them that believe it, nothing convenient for the disciples and members of Christ. No suffrages were made for the dead by the Apostles or their lawful successors. To the reader, Pur. 26. 166; 184. 177. 269. 362. 363. 419. 186. Contrà: here. cap. 3. he confesseth that the fathers held it, and yet notwithstanding, that they were members of the true Church (cap. 2.) and held the foundation of Jesus Christ (cap. 5.) & all the substance of true doctrine: And also that they did invocate Saints: denying in other places that such be true Christians. The like of fasting. Pur. • 93. 405.

I never confessed those godly fathers to hold purgatory in such blasphemous sense, as the papists do, nor yet prayer for the dead, or invocation of Saints. By fasting, I know not what he meaneth, for in the page, whereto he sendeth me 141. is no such matter spoken of, nor fasting once named.

12 The opinion of Purgatory and satisfaction of sins after this life, is the very doctrine of licentiousness, to maintain wicked men in their presumptuousnesse. For what hast will they make to amendment and newenesse of life, when they have hope of release after their death? Pur. 51. 26. 166. 177. 184. Contra: As Saint Augustine saith, it is but for small faults: or as M. Allen saith, for great faults that by penance are made small. And is God such a merciful father to punish small faults so extremely in his children, whom he pardoneth of all their great and heinous sins? Pur. 448.

The latter part of this pretēsed cōtradictō is not mine, but Allens assertion, which I rehearse to show the absurdity of his expositiō of the happy rest promised. Apo. 13.

13 How long soever the true Church were hidden, whether i • were a 1000. years, or 2000. years, this is certain, that out of this Church none could be saved. Ar. 73. Contra, here cap. 5. he counteth it enough, if the faith of their salvation were in the only foundation Jesus Christ, and that in such a sense as agreeth to men indeed out of the Church.

The whole faith of their salvation is in the only foundation Jesus Christ, in such such sense as I speak cannot be out of the Church.

14 They which hold the foundation, that is Christ (to wit the Article of Justification by the only mercy of God, and of the only son of God) are doubtless members of the true Church of Christ. Ar. 61. • 4. Pur. 2 • 8. Contra: here cap. 10. where he saith, that the Anabaptists are abhominable heretics, and that they are not Protestants: who yet do hold that article i • mp as the Protestants do.

It is a loudly, and never said of me, that the Anabaptists do hold that article iump as the protestants.

15 A general departing from the faith, was foreshowed, and it was fulfilled An. 607. Contra: The Church was never lost (neither when the departing was general) but hidden (in the wilderness, that is) from the eyes of the world. She is to this day preserved, and shall be to the worlds end. Christ hath never wanted his Spouse in earth, he hath ever been a head without a body. Ar. 36. 38. Ar. 71. 78. 79. 80.

The general departing from the faith, was not of all persons, but of most in all nations: and therefore the Church never failed.

16 The primitive Church of the Apostles hath continued unto this day by succession not of persons and places, but of the doctrine, faith, and truth. These verte words contain a manifest contradiction. For how can a Church, or doctrine, faith, and truth continue, but in persons and places? in so much that he saith also: We doubt not, but God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers, that have instructed his Church in the necessary pointes of Christian Doctrine. Ar. 2. 96. 26. 27.

These words contain no contradiction. For the Church may continue in persons and places, although not by continual succession of persons in the same places. Bristow forgetteth his rules of contradiction, opposing continuance by succession of persons and places, to continuance in persons and places.

17 The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast & inseparable from Christ her head, though the blind world, when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his Spouse, but persecute her, as if she were an adulteress, Contra: in the same place: The true Church under the Emperors Constantine, Constance, and Valens, was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius. And in another place: The visible Church may become an adulteress, and be diuorsed from Christ. And so is that faithful Church of Rome become an harl •• .

This contradiction is made up with a falsification of my words: The true Church under the Emperors Constantius, &c. For I say not, the true Church, but speak generally of the Church, which suffered persecution until Constantine, which was y ^e visible Church, under which name many heretics were persecuted. Visible Church is not always the true Church.

The 18 The true Church consisting of God's elect, and the lively members of the body of Christ, shall never commit such adultery &c. But the visible Church may separate her self from Christ. As though there were another Church besides the visible Church, and so two churches. Contra: Wheresoever the Catholic Church be in partes, it is one body of Christ.

There are not two Churches, but one. The catholic Church is always invisible: the militant Church on earth, which is a part thereof, is to the world sometime visible, and sometimes not seen of the world.

The 19 Anno. 607. the Church fled into the wilderness, that is, out of the sight and knowledge of the world, there to remain a long season: where all this while God hath preserved her until such time as he thought good, now in our days to bring her out of her secret place in the wilderness, into the open sight of the world again. Ar. 16. 27. 79. 36. Contra: Divers times it was bold to challenge preaching & ministering of the sacraments, yea and so boldly, that it cost many of the chalengers their lives: As Berengarius, Brumo, Marsilius de Padua, Johannes de Gaudano. Johannes Wickleue, Waldo, Johannes Hus, Ieronymus de Praga, &c. Ar. 77.

The only show of contradiction, is a falsification of of Bristow, reporting my words, Where all this while &c. As though the Church hath always been so hidden, y ^e no members thereof might appear. But those words be of his own cauillous cōpositiō, & not of my writing. But here beside the contradiction, he noteth two things against me, One, that it cost not all these, yea, very few of these there lives. Neither did I say, it cost all, but many, to justify this multitude: John Hus and Jerome are expressed beside many hundreds that are contained under &c.

The other matter is that neither these before appearing, were secret protestans, but open papists. Belike he would bear us in hand, that their open appearing & conuersiō from popery, was both in a moment of time. But what if some of them were first papists, and afterward returned from popery to y ^e catholic Church, as Hus & Jerome, being converted by certain Englishmen, yet weere they not all such, for Waldo was never any papist, but a Christian Catholic, who seeing the horrible enormities of the Romish synagogue, openly with many thousands, I renounced her communion, when she would not be reformed at his godly preaching.

20 To bring her again into open light. Which is now brought to pass in our days. Ar, 16. 9 • . Contra: from the yere of our Lord 1414. (being the time of the Council of Constance) the bright beams of the Gospel have shined in the world. Ar. 36.

I see no sign of cōtradictiō in these words, except these propositions be cōtradictorie: The bright beams of y ^e sun do shine in y ^e morning before y ^e sun be full risen: &, y ^e same is seen in opē light after he is fully risē above y ^e earth.

The 21 The revelation of Antichrist (with the Churches flight into the wilderness) was An. 607. when Boniface the 3. &c. For until then the mystery of iniquity was preparing for his revelation & coming, & for the general defection. Ar. 38. 36 16. Contra: She hath not decayed there in the wilderness, but been always preserved, until God should reueile Antichrist, which is now brought to pass in our days. Ar. 16.

The revelation of the mystery of iniquity was, when Antichrist himself did openlie show that iniquity which before was not thoroughly discovered. God reueileth Antichrist, when he openeth unto men his horrible wickedness, which to them were unknown. A wonderful contradiction of Antichrist reueiling himself, and God reueiling Antichrist.

The 22 The Churches being in the wilderness, was, to be out of the sight & knowledge of the wicked. Ar. 27. 95. Contra, speaking of the same space, She was narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long seasō. Again: Although it were known to the papists, yet it was in Italy when Marsilius of Padua preached: in France, when Waldo: in England, when Wickleue: in Bohemia, when Hus, and Jerome of Prague did flourish. Why? all these were well known to the papists. As though the Church could not be persecuted in her menbers, except she were all known̄, or known to be the Church by her persecutors.

23 A rule of y ^e Logiciās: No man knoweth a relative, except he know the correlatiue thereof: Therefore though Christ had a body in earth. yet could it be known of none, but such as knew Christ the head of that body, of whom the papists were ignorant. A 1. 80. Contra: Our Church is now again brought to light and knowledge of the world. Ar. 96. So that now belike the papists know Christ, or the Logicians rule is verified only for the time of the Churches being in the wilderness, according as in other places he moderateth the matter, saying: We believe that the Church is not always known to the wicked upon earth. Pur. 150. Ar. 77. 79, 80.

Whether the papists know Christ or no, certain it is, they will not acknowledge him, who came into the world, which was made by him, and yet the world knew him not, whom they would not acknowledge. The papists cannot say, they know not our Church, although they will not acknowledge her to be the true Church, and so my saying is true, that our Church is brought into knowledge even of y ^e world of papists. The rules of Logiciās are always true, but they are often ill kept by popish sophisters, as y ^e rules of cōtradictiō here by Bristow.

24 We believe that the universal Church is not seen at all of men, because it is in heaven Pur. 405. Ar. 95. 82. 74 80. Contra: Our Church, when it was most hidden, might rightly be called Catholic (that is universal) &c. Here Cap. 10. Dem. 6: And whereas you say, that no man alive could name the place where it was, you make an impud • nt lie: For although it were unknown to the Papists and enemies thereof, yet was it known to the true members thereof.

I see no opposition, except you will say, there is no knowledge but by bodily sight, or that some members of the Church, may not be seen in earth, because Jerusalem the mother of us all, is above.

25 And as for our Mother Church is no certain place, or company of men in any one place upon earth, but Jerusalem which is above, is mother of us all. Pur. 377 Contra: That no man alive could name the place where it was, is an impudent lie. It was in Italy, when Marsilius preached, &c. Vt suprà in contrad. 22. Christ hath never wanted his spouse in earth, though the blind world when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his spouse, but persecute her as if she were an adulteress. She was known to them that were her children. The church of Christ is the nurse of Christians. Jerusalem that is from above, is mother of us all. Ar. 95 79 82. 106.

Those are as great contradictions as these. Bristow is at Leuven. Bristowes foot is in his shoe. The whole Church and mystical body of Christ is in heaven: therefore some members and parts thereof cannot be on earth.

26 It is not called Catholic, because it should be everywhere. For that it never was, nor never shall be. Ar. 95. Contra: It should ouerflowe and fill all the world with righteousness. Isaiah. 10. That God hath an holy universal congregation, it is necessary to believe. It is dispersed in many places over all the world. Ar. 73. 83. 80.

It is not everywhere: and it is in many places: be not contradictory. And the remnant may ouerflowe and fill the world with righteousness, as Isaiah saith: although it fill not every place and person thereof, nor most places and persons always.

27 Christ's church is now by GOD enlarged further than the Popish church. Ar. 12. 3. 69. Contra: It is but a small flock in comparison of the malignant church (of Antichrist) whose number is as the sand of the sea. Apoc. 20.

The Popish Church is not so large as the malignant Church of Satan by many partes, which containeth all the wicked of the world, the name of Antichrist is added by Bristow. Yet are there more Antichrists than y ^e Pope, although he be the chief y ^t sitteth in the temple of God.

28 It is a good argument, that the Popish church is not the church of Christ, because it was never hidden since it first sprang up: in so much that you can name the notable persons in all ages, in their government and ministry, and especially the succession of the Popes, you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. And it were a token that our church were not the true church, if we could name such notable persons in their government and ministry. Ar. 27. Contra: Such officers as are necessary for the conservation of God's people in the unity of faith and the knowledge of Christ, our Church hath never lacked, notwithstanding that through injury of the time (because our Church had not so many Registers, Chroniclers, and remembrauncers) the remembrance of all their names is not come unto us. For the authority of the Bible, we have the testimony of the true Church in all ages. Our congregation hath ever had possession of the Scriptures. GOD hath never suffered the true Church to be destitute of the necessary use of the Scripture: Which the Popish Church hath so kept in an unknown tongue, that the people could have no use, much less the necessary use thereof. The Church of GOD hath always had Schools and Universities for the maintenance of godly learning. The true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions. It was never so secrete nor hidden, but it might be known of all those that had eyes to see it. That a thousand years there was gathering together for preaching, ministering, and correcting. God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers. The Church hath never been afraid to do her office towards her children and true members, in teaching, exhorting, comforting, confirming, &c. Ar. 28. 27. 9. 6. 5. 52. 11. 74. 75. 26. 82.

In these large propositions, howsoever they be patched, I see no contradiction. Except these be contraditories: The Church was sometime hidden from her enemies: and yet where she was gathered, did perform all duties to her friends and children. It was not seen of the blind, but it was seen of them that had eyes.

29 The Popish Church was never hidden since it first sprang up. Ar. 27. Contra: The Church of Rome hath not always practiced open preaching, and never preached the word of truth. Ar. 85.

There was small preaching before the orders of begging friers began to supply the want of the pastors. And yet the popish Church glistered in her whorish pomp.

30 Touching the text Matthew 5. of a city built upon an hill, which cannot be hidden, after he hath given his sense of it, he saith: Hereby it appeareth howe fondly some Papists (and some of the Doctors in their error) do expound this place to grove, that the Church must always be visible. Ar. 100. Contra: even in his own exposition there: It is properly meant of the Apostles and their su •• essours the Ministers of the Church: he teacheth them above all other men, to look diligently to their life and conversation: for as they excel in place and dignity, so the eyes of all men are set upon them. As a city built upon an hill, must needs be seen of all that come near it, so they being placed in so high an office and dignity, shall be noted and marked above all other men. One part of the Church is always visible to the eyes of all men, and cannot be hidden: and yet the whole Church, and so also that part, is not always visible, but may be hidden, and was hidden for a thousand years. So he saith.

The whole Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, is invisible. Although the ministers of the Church and their conversation, cannot be hidden from the members of every particular Church.

31 The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles time. And so the error of praying for the dead was continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the Church of Antichrist. Contra: The Primitive pure church for the space of an hundredth years after Christ. Again: Anno 607. The church fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season, where she hath not decayed, but been always preserved, until God should bring her again to open light now in our days. The true church shall never decay, but always reign with Christ. The false synagogue shall' daily more and more decay, until it be utterly destroyed with Antichrist the head thereof. If this be not contradiction, it is much worse, to wit, that Luther and his Apostles have given us a visible church which shall not decay, Whereas Christ and his Apostles gave us a visible church which did decay, yea and plainly depart away into Apostasy.

The places show that decaying hath double understanding. The true Church soon after the Apostles, decayed in sincerity, yet never decayed nor shall decay in continuance. Luther gave no Church; but even that Church which is best lightened by his preaching, may decay in sincerity, if the pastors be not diligent to teach the word of God simply.

32 At every word he calleth the Pope Antichrist, and the head of the malignant church. Contra: in some places he maketh two distinct heads and their distinct companies. As, when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the West, seduced the world, then the church fled into the wilderness. Again: The Popish church is not in every part of the world: for Muhammad's sect is in the greatest part. Ar. 16. 65.

I call the Pope Antichrist oftentimes: but that I call the Pope head of the malignant Church, though Bristow saith I do it at every word, yet he is not able to note one place where I do it, rather Bristow maketh a flat contradiction in saying of me, At every word he calleth the Pope the head of the malignant church. Contra: In some places he maketh two distinct heads, and their distinct companies.

33 That the true church may err, and hath erred, notwithstanding any privilege it hath by God's spirit, we heard him say, cap. 3. Now to the contrary. Neither hath the spirit of God failed to lead her into all truth. There be some prerogati • es of God's spirit, that are necessary for the salvation of God's elect, as the gift of understanding, the gift of faith, &c. And these the spouse of Christ hath never wanted. True faith, &c. might be signs of the true church. The spouse of Christ heareth the voice of Christ, and is ruled thereby. The church of GOD is the pillar and stay of truth, so called, because that where so ever the church is, either visible or invisible, there is the truth. Saint Paul by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers, howe great a burden and charge they sustain, that the truth of the Gospel cannot be continued in the world, but by their ministry in the church of God, which is the pillar and stay of truth. This their duty true preachers considering, are diligent in their calling to preach the truth. As our church is the pillar and stay of truth, so is she also the house of truth, which knoweth nothing but him that is the truth it self Jesus Christ, and his most holy Scripture, in which this truth is signed and testified. We require you to believe the true Catholic church only: and immediately again to the contrary: We require you not to believe any one company of men, more than another. Ar. 82. 81. 93. 99. 62. 77. 100. 108. 62.

This contradiction is easily reconciled. The true Church may err, but not in any point, that is necessary to everlasting salvation. We require men to believe the true Catholic Church only, not for the company, but for the truth.

34 The error (of Purgatory and praying for the dead) is continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the church of Antichrist. Contra: The t • ue and only church of God is so guided by God's spirit, and directed by his word, that she cannot induce any damnable error to con •• n •• : No, nor suffereth any man dānably abusing her religion, without open reprehension: and yet Purgatory, &c. came in with silence.

The error of praying for the dead, was not damnable, while it continued in the Church of Christ, the Church of Antichrist by derogating full satisfaction from the blood of Christ, hath made it damnable.

35 The church of Christ hath of the holy Ghost a judgment to discern true writings from counterfeits, and the word of GOD of infallible verity, from the writing of men which might err. She hath commended the books of holy Scripture to be believed of all true Christians. We persuade us of the authority of God's book, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit for the authority of it, with the testimony of the true church in all ages. Ar. 5. 4. 9. Contra: All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you. For other writings may be counted the works of their authors, without your censure: the holy Scripture may not be counted the word of God, except you list so to allow it. Other writings are of credit according to the authority of the writers: The holy Scriptures with you houe not credit according to the authority of God the author of them, but according to your determination. Pur. 219.

Here is no show of contradiction, but a wretched begging of the principle, that the Popish Church is the true Church of Christ. Of such contradictions you may make not 50 but 500000.

36 Those that by true Christians have been called and counted for heretics, have proved so in deed. Ar. 65. Contra: This Demaund hath a false principle: that the church ought to be a Christian man's (only: it is not in Doctor Allens principle) stay in all troubles and tempests.

The first proposition is an Ironicall imitation of Allens absurd proposition, and not an absolute assertion of mine.

37 And therefore the Papists, being called and counted heretics of true Christians (that is, of the Protestants) without doubt are heretics in deed. Ar 65. Contra. He is a foolish Sophister, that reasoneth from names to things: as you do most vainly and childishly. Ar. 66.

The former proposition, is the conclusion which I retort upon Allens principle, that whosoever by true Christians are called heretics, do prove so in deed.

38 There is never heresy, but there is as great doubt of the church, as of the matter in question. Ar. 86. Contra: Augustine's argument of the public prayers of the church, took no hold of the Pelagians by force of truth that is in it, but by their own confession and grant, of that prayer to be godly, and them to be of the church that so prayed. But now the controversy is not only of the substance of doctrine, but of the church it self also. The Donatists challenged the church to themselves. Pur. 367.

Here is not so much as any shadow of contradiction, for in the heresy of the Donatists, the chiefest controversy was of the Church: as for the prayer of the Church, they used it themselves as well as the true Catholics, out of which prayer Augustine gathereth an argument against them.

39 But for the chief pointes of Christian religion, and the foundation of our faith, that is, Real presence, &c. the most approved writers are utterly against you, and therefore cannot be of your church. Contra: But the Lutherans and Zwinglians (as it pleaseth you to call them) are of one true church, although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament, the one assirming a Real presence, the other denying it.

The contradiction is easily avoided, by showing, that the real presence among a number of things in that place rehearsed, may be one chief point of religion, and yet not a foundation of our faith. For I say the ancient fathers agree with us in the chief points of religion, and the foundation of our faith, which seeing the Lutherans hold with us, the dissent in one chief point of religion, cannot disseuer them from the Church, and yet they dissent not unto idolatry, as the Papists do. And where Bristow slandereth me to say, that I count the errors of some of y ^t latter sort of old fathers (in honoring relics invocation of Saints, merits, traditions, unwritten verities, images of the cross) to be contrary to the foundation, he is able to show no place where I so affirm. And albeit they did so earnestly maintain some of those errors, that they condemned by their private sensure, the contrary truth, for heresies: yet it followeth not that they were heretics. For it is one thing to hold an error earnestly, another to hold it obstinately, so that he is condemned of his own conscience, when he will not yield to the manifest truth plamly proved out of the word of God.

40 We know that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously err in any article of faith, concerning the substance of religion. Luther, Calvin, and Bucer, shall come with Christ to judge the world. As for Illyrians, if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus, they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament, and differ only in ceremonies, which cannot divide them from the faith. Ar. 10. 61. Pur. 403. Contra: What Flaccius, or any such as he is, hath said, neither do I know, neither do I regard, let them answer for them selves: But whereas you charge M. Calvin, &c.

Because I know not how Illyricus, and such contentious persons as he, expoundeth the annointing in Saint James, but refer them to answer for them selves, therefore I speak contrary to myself, where I say they differ not in faith, from the Lutherans.

41 There is never heresy, but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question. Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian man's conscience. Ar. 86. Contra: The Church is the • ay of truth. If that argument of the Church without trial which is the Church, might take place, it would serve you both for a sword and a bucklar. The church saith it, and we are the church. Therefore it is true. Pur. 367.

It seemeth Bristow is beside himself, in coining of contradictions. These words, The Church is the stay of truth, for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place, but his own addition: although in other sense I confess the Church is the stay and pillar of truth, not that all is true which is always in the Church, but that truth cannot be preserved on earth by the Church.

42 Among the arguments that Augustine useth against the Pelagians, one (though the feeblest of an hundred) is, that their heresy was contrary to the public prayers of the church. Contra: All other persuasions set aside, he provoketh only to the Scripture, to try the faith and doctrine of the church, namely in beating down the schism of the Donaistes, and the heresy of the Pelagians. Where also he contradicteth him self again, in showing the reason why he argued against the Donatists of only Scripture, but against the Pelagians of the churches prayers also: The Pelagians granted them to be of the church that so prayed. And therefore when Augustine had to do with the Donatists that challenged the church unto them selves, he setteth all other trials aside, and provoketh only to the Scriptures.

Let the readers judge: for I cannot imagine where there be should be so much as the shadow of a contradiction, gathered out of these words, except he mean, that he which provoketh only to the scriptures, may not use an hundredth arguments out of them, yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures, and yet stand only upon the authority of the scriptures.

43 We stand for authority only to the judgment of the holy scriptures. Pu. 432. Contra: The ground that we have to persuade us of y ^e authority of gods book, is, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit, for the authority of that book, with the testimony of the true church in alages. The church of Christ hath a judgment to discern the word of God, from the writings of men. The primitive churches testimony of the word of God we allow and believe. You should bring a great prejudice against us and passing well provide for the credit of your cause, & the discredit of ours, if you could bring the consent and practice of the primitive pure church for the space of a hundredth years after Christ, or something out of any Authentical writer, which lived within one hundred years after the Apostles age. Ar. 9. 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39. 42.

The first proposition (as in the place quoted is manifest) is spoken of questions of doctrine: and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God. The last sentence, You should bring, &c. being patched out of two places of my book, Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition: for although we stand for authority only to judgment of the holy scriptures, yet we are content to give you this advantage against us, if you can bring anything out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead.

44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without color or couerture, the only right order of ministration. Contra, in the next line: I know the Papists will flee to those words of the Apostle, The rest I will set in order when I come. That is manifest to be spoken of matters of external comeliness, and therefore (say we) of the order of ministration. Pur. 362.

In rehearsing my words, he leaveth out five lines of my saying, between the words Couerture, and The only right, &c. which declare that I speak of the ess • ntiall order of ministration, against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the host for the quick and the dead, both generally and particularly, and a solemn prayer for all departed in Christ, to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament.

45 The old Doctors never heard Purgatory named, nor prayer for the dead. Pur. 438. Contra: About S. Augustine's time, the name of Purgatory was first invented. And long afore that also, Montanus had in all points the opiniō of the Papists, &c. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet again, Before Chrysostom's time it was but a blind error without a head. Pur. 356.

My words are of the heresy of Purgatory, and my meaning of those old Doctors, in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a punie, being younger almost by 300. years, in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inue • ted, yet the heresy was elder in Montanus. How prayer for the dead came into the Church, it was uncertain in Chrysostom's time, and therefore I say it was a blind error without a head.

46 In Saint Augustine's time, Satan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatory. Pur. 54. Contra: That error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded up in his time. Pur. 161. And specially here, cap. 3. pag. 14 saying: And this I think is the right pedigree of prayers for the dead and Purgatory, where he putteth the very last generation of it to have been in S. Augustine's time, and the foundationlong afore Christ's time.

It were a strange contradiction, that could be picked out of these two allegories, laying the foundation, and rifely budding; seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building, and budding is the first towardness of fruit As for the pedigree, is not to the last generation, as Bristow saith, laid in Saint Augustine's time, but from the first auctor howe it was continued unto Saint Augustine's time, since which there have been many dissents before popish Purgatory were thoroughly shaped and brought forth.

47 M. Allen affirmeth that after men's departure, the representation of alms by such as received it, shall move God exceedingly to mercy. O vain imagination, for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor. Pur. 242. 243. Contra: Chrysostom alloweth rather alms that men give before their death, or bequeath in their Testament, because it is a work of their own: than that alms which other men give for them, howbeit also such alms are available for the dead, he saith. Pur. 236. 237.

That which Chrysostom speaketh of little help, will not serve Allen to prove that alms shall move GOD exceedingly to mercy.

48 The ancient Doctors did hold the foundation. Contra: cap. 4 pag. 28. He saith, The third Council of Carthage did define, that it is unlawful to pray to God the Some, and GOD the holy Ghost.

The Council of Carthage by that decree denied, neither y ^e person nor office of Christ, nor of the holy Ghost, therefore they held the foundation.

49 Here cap. 8. he saith, that the just of the old Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death, but to heaven immediately. Contra: The fiery and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise, was taken away by the death of Christ, when he opened Paradise, yea the kingdom of heaven (whereof Paradise was but a sacrament) unto all believers, so, that the penitent these had passage into Paradise.

The virtue of Christ's death extendeth to the old fathers for their salvation: as much as unto us, yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdom of heaven, was the death of Christ, by God's ordinance appointed to work righteousness for all the elect, as well before the time of his suffering, as since.

50 Who so denieth the authority of the holy scriptures, thereby bewrayeth him self to be an heretic. Contra: I say not this (here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretic) to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. James. As Martin Luther and Illyricus, for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing.

My words be not alleged truly, in neither of both propositions. In the former they are these, I will not gainsay, but whoso denieth, &c. I do not always affirm, that I will not gainsay. I may be in doubt. But to grant that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely: what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint James to be a counterfeit, was not accounted an heretic? Shall other men's account be joined to mine affirmation, to charge me with contradiction? Again, the former proposition, Who so denieth, &c. If it be affirmed, must be understood of such as deny the scriptures which are once received generally, because they are contrary to his opinion. If he mean the contradiction to be, for that I say: I will not excuse Martin and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint James, for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing: I must tell him, that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them, neither is foolish curiosity like by heresy.

Last of all, where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to avoid a shameful absurdity ensuing of his affirmation, he playeth his old parts, first in falsifying my words: where I say to reduce, he saith to redeem: secondly he saith, that Allen speaketh of him that now leadeth a godly life, but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance, or satisfaction of his loathsome life past. The very words of Allen be these: This our adversary, Math. 5. here signifieth our brother, which hath just quarrel against us in judgment, for y ^t we would not give ear unto him sharply admonishing us of our faults, being therefore an adversary to our vices and fleshly conversation. In which sort to us that are flesh and blood, and ready to evil from our youth, all be adversaries that preach Christ, the amendment of licentious manners, repentance of our loathsome life past, or else use against us the rod of correction and bodily punishment, that our souls may be saved in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kind of adversary Christ counselleth and commandeth us, for our great good, to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitory life, least all these means which he wrought to reduce us, to the perfection of a Christian godly life, be as it were, a witness of our contempt, and him self our accuser before the Judge, that shall so justly reward every man according to his deeds: that is Christ him self, to whom the father hath given all judgment.

Now the words in which I reprove this absurdity of Allen, are these. But before we go any further, let us see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with y ^t we had in the chapter next before. There we were told, that Purgatory serveth but for venial sins, or else for such mortal sins, as by forgiveness in this life obtained, are made venial trespasses. But here not only vices and fleshly conversation, but also contempt of all that preach Christ, and repentance of our loathsome life past, &c. are said to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatory to the uttermost farthing, then the which no vice is more mortal, nor further from forgiveness. For he that not only leadeth a loathsome life, but also contemneth all those means that Christ hath wrought, to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life; (I use his own words) howe can he have remission of his sins in this life? and yet Master Allen dare promise him, that the toleration of bands in the prison of Purgatory, shall recompense his debt, and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ.

The twelfth Chapter.

A nosegaie of certain strange flowers picked out of Fulke, that they which delight in such a Gardener, may see his handy work.

The first flower is that I say, Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatory was offered in the law only by the high Priest, once in the year. But Bristow saith, that sacrifice propitiatory, and for sin are all one: which sacrifice for sin was offered, not only once in the year, in the seast of expiation, but also in many other feast days, ordinarily and extraordinarily; when so ever any occasion was ministered &c. I know not whether I should here accuse his ignorance, or his malice. Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatory (unto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christ's death, Heb. 9) with the often and usual sacrifices for sin, saying they are all one. When that one above all the rest is described with such solemnity, that the high Priest that day only entereth into the holiest place, that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering, &c. And that it should be an everlasting ordinance to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins once a year. Levite. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sin had their virtue of that shadowie or sacramental propitiation, of this principal sacrifice, which was the most lively pattern or example of the only true sacrifice propitiatory, which our Savior Christ offered on y ^e cross; once for all: which proportion is observed by the Apostle, Heb 9. ver. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.. &c. & Heb. 10. ver 11. & 12. But where Bristow saith, beside this one propitiatory sacrifice, Fulke findeth none, but sacrifices of thanksgiving in the law, he affirmeth that which was neither said of me, nor is truly collected of him. For I said, that Cyprian in these terms, sacrifice, priest, altar, alludeth to the sacrifices of thanksgiving in the law, because he useth also the name of Levites, by which he calleth God's ministers. Let Bristow now go and say, that Levites also offered sacrifice propitiatori • in the law.

The second flower of mine ignorance is, where to deface the sacrifice of Judas Macha 〈…〉 aeus, I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and ungodly man, to wit, either Jason, Menelaus, or Alcimus, and namely Menelaus, the worst of them all three: and also that the other Priests of that time, were given to the practices of the Gentiles, 2. Machab. 4. In so much, that it is like that Judas Machabaeus, if he devised not the sacrifice of his own head, yet took by imitation of the Gentiles. Frst he maruelleth, howe I could think that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers, against whom all his fighting was, seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priests without spot, having their heart in the law of God. I answer being such as they were described. 2. Machab. 4. he had hard choice to find a sufficient number of unspotted priests. But although he were an enemy of gentility, in that corrupt time and state, he might be drawn into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a show of piety, although it were not agreeable to the law of God.

His next accusation is, that I call them high priests which were but antipontifices and usurpers. I answer, I justify not their title, more then their manners and religion, but whereas by his greekelatine word, he supposeth that there were other true high priests in their time, he bewrayeth his own gross ignorance. For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priests for that time was this: Onias, Mathathias, Judas. Ionathas, Simon: The truth is, that Mathathias and Judas were never high priests, neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth, show anything to prove that they were: It saith that Mathathias was a priest, but not that he was the high priest. And Josephus who did write an history of the Maccabees, testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Jonathan, for 7. years there was no high priest, which Jonathan was made high priest in the year 160. Joseph. Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many years after Judas his brother was slain. Therefore at such time as Judas should send the offering to Jerusalem, there was no such good Bishop, as Allen saith: but even Onias cognomento Menelaus, as Josephus calleth him, which was deprived both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith, at Berea. 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Maccabees Bethzetha. But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chief priests in the absence of Judas, and not Menelaus, he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Judas made from Jerusalem, for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plain in the same chapter, that Simon was sent with an host into Galilee, and Jonathan went with his brother Judas over Jordan into Gilead: which story, how he will reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons, I have great marvel. But that Menelaus, as he was then in office of the high priest, though unworthy, so that he was at Jerusalem, it appeareth by this record of the time. The Temple was purged (as Bristow confesseth,) and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe, and in the same year Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Jews, whereof Lysias writeth to the Jews the 24. of the month of Jupiter, Corinthus and king Antiochus himself, with letters bearing date the 15. of the month Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Jews. 5. Mac. 11. And y ^e next year after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Jewry, and did execution upon Menelaus, and made war upon Judas, &c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest, which continued in that place 3. years. Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second book of Maccabees, agree not with the story of the first book, as in deed it doth not, let Bristow look •• to it, that defendeth these books to be Canonical: it is sufficient for me to justify that I cited out of this latter book, by the report of the same book: and by Josephus, who knew the succession of the high Priests of his nation, better than Bristow, whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious, that he would charge me with oversight, in that he is most ignorant him self: and that against his Master Allen, who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop, and not Judas him self.

The third chapter, of my gross or rather malicious ignorance, is said to be about Antichrist: As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way, or work his mystery. But this is a fable of Bristow, never affirmed by me. As for the other assertions of the time of his revelation, of the Churches fleeing into the wilderness, of the time of Antichrists reign, &c. because they are condemned by the only authority of Bristow, without any argument or testimony of Scripture, or Fathers, I will refer the reader to such places, where I affirm any of them, to consider my reasons, and to judge indifferently.

The fourth point is, that the body of Christ is not offered to him self, but thanksgiving is offered to him for the offering of his body for us. Pur. 316. Against this, his reasons are these. Why sir, did not he upon the cross offer his own body as a Man, and a Priest to him self as to God? Sir, the Scripture telleth me, that Christ being an high Priest, by his eternal spirit, offered him self unreprovable to GOD: Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo, you will say to him self as God, because the persons of the godhead are undivided. Yet I trust you will distinguish y ^e humanity from the deity, & so Christ offered not his body to him self, y ^t is, neither to his humanity, nor to y ^e person of the mediator, which is God and man. For though God was made man, yet God the Father was not made man, nor God the holy Ghost, but God the Son only. And although it were granted, that Christ offering him self to God, was offered to him self, yet it followeth not that men of whom I spake, can offer the body of Christ, yea whole Christ to him self, then the which nothing is more absurd. An other reason Bristow bringeth: that I noted others for saying, it is not lawful to pray to God the son. As though it were all one to pray to Christ, & to offer his body to Christ, himself to himself. The fifth: That I call it a vain amplification and fond suppositiō to extend the force of Christ's death beyond the limits of his will. My words are of Allens supposition, that the full force of Christ's death would sup up all sin & all pain for sin, death temporal, and eternal, hell, purgatory, and all pain, &c. But what reasons hath Bristow against my saying? First: my assertion is (saith he) As though it were not of force to work any whit more than it worketh in act, as to save so much as one of them that shall not be saved. I say, it is of force to work even as much as God will, but not to work against the will of God. But I speak contrary to the express scripture. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1. John. 2. If you understand the whole world, for every man in the world, then it followeth, that God is reconciled for all men, & so no man shall be damned. But S. John meaneth by his general word, all the elect of the world: as when he saith, The whole world is set on mischief; he meaneth not every person, but all the reprobate 1. John. 5. And that Christ's death is not a propitiation of the sins of all the wicked of the world and reprobates, it is certain, by that he refuseth to pray for the world, that is, for the reprobates of the world, John 17.

But Bristow urgeth me with mine own saying, in another contrary to this. Concerning the sufficiency of Christ's redemption, there is nothing that can be spoken so magnifically, but that the worthiness thereof passeth and excelleth it. This should have come in among the contradictions, if Bristow had remembered it. But I beseech you sir, in commending the sufficiency of Christ's redemption, do I extend the force of his death beyond the limits of his will? Are anymore redeemed than Christ would?

The sixth: I say, that to remit sins, is proper to his divinity. That is (saith Bristow) as though Christ doth not remit sins, according to his humanity. I say Christ which is a person consisting of God and man, doth remit sins by absolute authority, but that is proper to his divinity and not to his humanity, as for the power which he hath given to his ministers, to remit sin, is not absolute, but to declare remission of sins in his name. Neither did the people which glorified God for giving such power to men Matth. 9. acknowledge the doctrine of the Church for the remission of sins by the ministry of man, but praised God for giving the gift of healing unto Christ, whom yet as young scholars, they acknowledge not to be God, but an holy Prophet sent of God. And so the other Evangelists report their praising of God to have been for that they never saw it so: they had seen wonderful things that day. Mark. 2. Luk. 5.

The 7. he chargeth me to teach a pestilent doctrine of desperation, Where I say, there be sins for which the Church ought not to pray, even of men remaining in this life: for which it is not lawful to pray: which by the mercy of God are not pardonable: it is false, that so long as men are in this world, they may repent. For which he quoteth Pur. 274 127. 128. 135. 283.

After he asketh how many such sins there are? and saith in one place I name two, and after more, and after concludeth that in some I say, that it is unlawful to pray for any wicked person, of what sort so ever his wickedness be, so long as he continueth in his wickedness: yea, and it is impossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickedness. This is a pestilent slander, for I never accounted any sin irremisible, but only the sin against the holy Ghost: for obstinate and willful apostasy is y ^e sin against the holy Ghost, whereof a fruit is final contempt of all that preach Christ, and of all means that Christ hath wrought to bring us to repentance, such was the sin of Saul and of the obstinate Jews, for whom Samuel and Jeremiah are forbidden to pray.

As for that I should say, it is not lawful to pray for any wicked person, &c. I never thought it, but only for those that sin against the holy Ghost, of whom Saint John saith, they sin unto death, and I say not that any man should pray for that. 1. John. 5. Nevertheless Bristow affirmeth, that we are worse then the Novatians, when I say, That some sins neither by the mercy of God are pardonable. But where do I say so? he quoteth before, Pur 128. And what be my words there? Verily who so will turn the book, shall read them thus: For by the justice of God all sins are mortal, but by his mercy they are all pardonable, except that sin unto death, whereof John speaketh. 1. John. 5. Thus am I worse thā a Nouatian, for saying, y ^e sin against the holy Ghost shall never be pardoned, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. But perhaps Bristow will cavil, that even that sin is pardonably by God's mercy, if God would: which is not contrary to that I said. For I speak of that which may be, God's eternal will standing, according unto which the Apostle saith, it is impossible that they which so offend can be renewed by repentance. Hebrews 6.

The heresy of the Novatians as Bristow affirmeth of the report of Aresius their Bishop was: That they who after baptism, fall into that kind of sin. which the holy scriptures call sin unto death, ought not to be admitted to receive the divine mysteries, but to be exhorted to repentance, and to look for hope of forgiveness, not of the Priests, but of God, who both can and hath authority to forgive sins. In which sentence, a double error of the Novatians is included: first that they took that sin unto death whereof Saint John speaketh. 1 John. 5. to be falling through frailty in time of persecution, even as Bristow doth, the willful prolapsion and Apostasy that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 6. Secondly that they thought the sin unto death might be remitted of God, contrary to the manifest denunciation of our Savior Christ. Matth. 12. As Bristow doeth the sin against the holy Ghoste, which is all one and the same. But that the Catholic Church did then by her Priests forgive all sins without accepting the sin against the holy Ghost, which Bristow affirmeth out of the confession of Acesius, I marvel howe he proveth. Yea, he is so impudent to say, that the Protestants also do admit all to their Calvin's bread, so the blasphemous dog barketh against the holy Communion: whereas we never receive any whom we know to be excommunicated, and much less would we receive any apostata, that is clean fallen from Christianity, not of weakness or ignorance, but of malicious contempt; or any whom we might know to have sinned that sin unto death, and to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost.

But now let us see what miserable comfort Bristow will minister against desperation, in answering such places of scripture, as I brought, to prove the sin against the holy Ghost to be irremissible.

First the place of 1. John 5. he saith is meant of them that be dead and damned in hell, as he hath taught us: cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation, as false and new, he citeth Augustine. in ret. li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I hold, but afterward he addeth, if he end his life in this peruersitie. For we must despair of no man, be he never so wicked, so long as he is in this life. Neither is prayer made unwisely for him, who is not despaired of. Here are two contrary expositions of one man, in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place, and not whether better or last pleased the author of them.

That no man is to be despaired of, while he liveth, as it is contrary to the scripture, so to the practice of the Church, which refused to pray for Julianus the apostata, and prayed to God against him.

Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon, denounced him to his face to be impious, and an apostata, and enemy of God. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo. lib. 5. cap. 4.

The second text, Heb. 6. Bristow expoundeth it of falling through frailty in persecution, of them which cannot be renewed by baptism, but the Apostle saith expressly by repentance, and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling, but of prolapsion or falling clean away from Christ, with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption.

The terrible denunciation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristow faith, he speaketh it not to drive them to desperation, but to move them to repentance. What if that be granted, that by showing the danger of malicious obstinacy, which groweth to irremissible wickedness, he should admonish them to beware in time, as the Apostle doth, Heb. 6. Doth it therefore follow, that no man sinneth irremissiblie, while he liveth? Although it is plain, that our savior Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickedness, that nothing could reclay me them, or bring them to reap̄tance. But Bristow would make me contrary to myself, who though in express words I count D. Allen & his fellows such as (by you) Heb. 6. cannot repent, yet do exhort them truly to repent. &c. Pur. 461. But how proveth he, that I count Allen and his fellows such as cannot repent? Forsooth because I say, they have sometime been lightened and tasted of the good gift of God. Why sir, are all such come to prolapsion? I trow not, In deed I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion, that are curable. Whether Allen were ever a protestant, I know not: but certain I am, that some of his fellows have been lightened and were protestants, of whom I speak, and not of him. If I say Bristow and his fellows which are laymen: do I say Bristow is a lay man? This willful & malicious cavilling (Bristow) if you take not heed of it in time, argueth that you are fallen very deep, if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasy.

But this is a cunning comforter of them that are in desperation, which affirmeth, that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sin and blasphemy shall not be remitted, then he saith that all other sin and blasphemy shall be remitted: and therefore many one, yea, and above all number may be and is forgiven, the sin against the holy ghost.

He meaneth, because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiven. But if that condition were to be understood in them also that sin against the holy ghost, what distinction were there for which he should say? that blasphemy and sin shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in y ^e world to come? Such a sinner hath no remission of sins, but is guilty of eternal damnation. For that none shall be forgiven, without repentance, as every man knew without that distinction. But Bristow would have it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgive the sin against the holy ghost, and so he forgave one of those Pharisees, and he the very worst of them all: namely S. Paul, who had been indeed a Pharisee, as he confesseth. Act. 23. & 26. but none of those Pharisees: for he knew not, Christ in the flesh. 2. Cor 5. yea, he had been a persecutor and a blasphemer, as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees, for he was an elect vessel of God, and his persecution and blasphemy was not of malice or sin against the holy ghost, but of ignorance and blind zeal of God: for he addeth immediately, but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. As for those Pharisees, against whom our Savior Christ thundereth that judgment, did blaspheme the holy ghost against their own conscience, and knowledge, maliciously attributing unto the devil, that which they knew to be the finger of God.

That which I speak out of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Bristow saith, is all spoken in one sense, of temporal matters, to wit of casting Saul from his kingdom, and the Jews into captivity. But except the persons had been incurable, God would have been entreated to give them reap̄tance, & to have continued Saul in his kingdom, and the people in their country. The rule that Ezekiel. 33. is understood of sins that are not against the holy ghost, as the examples do plainly declare.

The 8. point is, that strange interpretation of the creed, (a • he calleth it) Christ descended into hell to redeem us out of hell, by suffering the wrath of God for our sins. Heb. 5. First Bristow saith, there is never a word of that article, and much less of the interpretation thereof, in that chapter, yet after to prove that to be prayer, which I said was a complaint, as though it might not be be a complaing prayer, he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ, who in the days of his flesh, with a mighty cry, and with tears, offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him, out of death, and was heard from his fear or from that he feared 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But by this text, Bristow would prove, that Christ was not forsaken of his father, no not corporally, although he complained, that he was forsaken, as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed, when he said, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which to him that was God, was greater torment of hell, then any heart of man can conceive. And therefore Bristow, which maketh all to stand in the bodily death of Christ, and raileth at Calvin for showing how necessary it was for Christ, to suffer in soul as much as in body, for the redemption of y ^e whole man, doth nothing but cavil & slander, one while feigning y ^t Calvin should make two deaths of Christ, another while, y ^t he was in fear lest he should have been damned forever &c. Which he saith also shall be my reply. But when Bristow saith that Christ's bodily death without any suffering of his soul was the full redemption of the world, he maketh his torments of mind, whereof he complaineth that his soul was heavy unto death, which made him to sweat blood before his body was touched, to be of no force, except it were to argue great imbecility of Christ, who feared so much bodylie death, that many of his servants have joyfully embraced, and that strange cry and tears with which he uttered his prayers on the cross, and that most lamentable complaint, that God had forsaken him, were for nothing, but for that he was not delivered from the cross, (as Bristow writeth) it is too much injurious to his most bitter passion to imagine, and therefore we must needs acknowledge, that he suffered more in the sight of God, whose justice he was to satisfy, then he suffered in the sight of men. And so the question that Bristow propoundeth to me, is answered, why descendit ad inferos, cometh after sepultus, because the order of the Symbole is first to show, what suffered before men, and then what hesuffered in the sight of God. As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopseuestenus that Christ had inclination to sin, &c. there is no more reason why Bristow should charge us with it, then with those other blasphemies, that Christ did despair in God, or blaspheme God, or commit some other sin against God, for our redemption, which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Calvinists. For which detestable slander, if he have no better ground then he showeth, let him remember y ^t the mouth which lieth killeth the soul. I will spare to amplify, though I lack no matter, albeit y ^t Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaūders, as Jupiter's Giantes, & then casteth thē down with thūderbolts, deriding myknowledge in amplification.

The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie, wherein first he chargeth me with the heresy of the Heluidians & Antidicomarianites, who were condemned for heretics for denying her perpetual virginity; whereas he cometh nearer to the Colliridians, likewise condemned, thē we to y ^e Heluidians. But let us see his impudent quarrels. First I say: As for the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ, as we think it is true, so because the scripture hath not revealed it, neither pertaineth it unto us, we make no question of it. Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretics, which troubled y ^e Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to prove by y ^e scriptures: yet saith Bristow, you forge a principle of only scripture in their favor. Surely that principle as it is not forged, so it fauoreth them nothing at all. For their contentious assertion they were not able to prove by the scriptures, but within 4. lines afore, I am contrary to myself, where I say all truth may be proved by the scripture. If I had to do with a man of reason, as I have to do with a papist, he would understand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controversy, of such things as are necessary or profitable for a Christian man to know unto saluatiō. For otherwise I think many things to be true, that are not contained in the scriptures: As I think that Bristow lacketh wit, learning, & honesty, thus to quarrel which is not written in the scriptures, but gathered by other reasons: yet he saith, I might w ^c more honesty have said, y ^t it may be proved by scripture, where she saith, Luk. 1. Because I know no man, that is (saith he) because I have made a vow of virginity. A like matter, y ^t she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie. Yet Bristow confesseth this place proveth not invincibly her perpetual virginity, although it so prove her vow. But if Bristow were condemned, or had vowed to lie in prison until he could frame an invincible argument to prove her vow, out of that place, yea, or any other place of the scriptures, it were all one, as if he were condemned to perpetual prison or vowed the same.

Another point of that dishonor is, where I controlled Allen for excepting the mother of Christ, when he speaketh of sinners, which is all one as if he had said, Christ was not a savior of his mother, or that she had no need of his salvation. And here he chargeth me with reading Calvin more then Augustine, as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sin, because he saith against the Pelagians, that he would have no question of her for the honor of our Lord, when he speaketh of sins. For hereof we know that more grace was given to her, to overcome sin of all partes, which was worthy to conceive and bring forth him, 〈…〉 om it is certain that he had no sin, Denat. & grat. 136. It is all one with Bristow, to overcome sin, & to be void of all sin. What victory is there without a battle? if the flesh in y ^e virgin Marie, did not rebel against y ^e spirit, what victory had she by grace? But it is plain Pelagianism, to hold that she was void of sin or perfectly righteous. The Pelagian nameth also, ipsam etians domini &c. the very mother of our Lord and Savior, which he saith it is necessary for godliness, that we confess that she was without sin. But thereof Augustine for y ^e honor of our Lord will have no question: signifying that although she were not clear and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e, but had grace to overcome sin, yet for reverence of Christ her son, he would not reason thereof to bring her within the common cōpass of all siners. But Bristow perceiveth that I would not have so answered, seeing I affirm y ^t by the reprehension of Christ, John, 2. she did offend, for he would never have reproved his mother without a cause. And said, what have I to do with thee, woman? except she had intermeddled in his office, more then of duty she ought. But Bristow would color his reproof, two ways: one by false translation of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? what to me and thee, O woman? not understanding the greek phrase, which is by those words to refuse to have to do with one. As the devils Matt. 8. cried 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou son of God, and not as Bristow translateth, What to us and thee Jesus &c. But because Bristow saith, that if Christ should mean, that the want of wine pertained neither to him nor to his mother, yet she were not discharged of error, to move him in a matter, which belongeth neither to him nor her: He saith, I might do well to tell him, what were those sins of hers. I think the answer of Christ showeth what her offense was here, and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle under color of her motherly authority, with matter appertaining to his divine office, of being Christ the mediator, with which she had nothing to do, as a mother, but was esteemed of him as a woman, who knew when it was convenient for him to do, whatsoever were for the glory of God's kingdom, to be done, without her or any other bodies admonition. Neither do I charge her as Chrysostom in

Ioann. Hom. 20. Optabat. enim. &c. For she wished that he might now win the favor of men, and that she might be made more noble by the favor of her son. And perchance she was moved with some human affection, even as his brethren, when they said, show thyself to the world, being desirous by his miracles, to win themselves a fame. Therefore he answered more sharply: what have I to do with thee, woman? my hour is not yet come. For that he did reverence his mother, Luke doth testify, that he was subject to his parents, and this Evangelist doth show, how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion. For where his parents did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD, did offend nothing, it was meet and necessary for the son to be obedient, neither could he deny obedience without great peril. Contrarywise, when they desire an unseasonable thing, and that which would have been an hindrance to spiritual things. Who is my mother and my brethren? quoth he. For as yet they had not such opinion of him as they ought: but Marie after the manner of mothers, thought she should have commanded her son in all things, by her authority &c.

But the council of Trent (saith Bristow) showeth that she had more need of Christ's grace then all other saints, to preserve her from sin. But in the mean time, she had no need of his redemption, for the remission of sin, who was appointed to save his people from their sins, who came to seek and to save that which was lost, both of the house of Israel, and of the Gentiles, so many as attained saluatiō. So therefore howsoever Bristow scorneth at my divinity, I will still conclude that the virgin Mary, being so principal a persō of Christ's people, was saved from her sins, by the redemption of his blood, was lost, but sought up, and saved by him. Which divinity being taken out of the scriptures, I trust is more commendable, then the contrary doctrine derived from the Pelagians, and defended by the Papists.

The 10. point of mine ignorance is, about the definition of an heretic, whom I said to be a man in the Church. I have shown before, that I distinguish between him that is in the Church, and him that is of the Church; a Papist, an Anabaptist, may be in the Church, but they cannot be of the Church, except they repent. Where I added unto my definitiō, that if any of us can be proved obstinately to maintain our opinion, contrary to the doctrine of the scriptures, we refuse not to be counted heretics. Bristow saith, they may say the like. But the trial is all. Bristow saith, they bring plain scriptures to prove that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions, is the doctrine of the scriptures. And we say the same, that whatsoever the Apostles delivered in speech, they delivered also in writing, and neither contrary to other. But that all true doctrine necessary to salvation, is not contained in the scriptures, that you prove not, neither that such things were of the Apostles delivery, as you call traditions of the Apostles. As for the particular points you prate of, concerning the time of the Churches persecution, and Antichrists reign, have been answered in their proper places. The words of Christ, This is my body: we acknowledge to be true, in such sense as he spake them, neither can you prove that they import your carnal Carpernaiticall presence, what you hold of Justification by works, Worshipping of Images, Insufficiencie of Christ's redemption, Impeccabilitie of Marie &c. contrary to the express and plain texts of the scripture, it were out of place here o make rehearsal.

The 11. is mine ignorance in wondering at Allen for saying, that a Christian scholar should first believe, and after seek for understanding, he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there have I answered.

The 12. point proceedeth of like ignorance, where I am said to wonder, when I hear that the sacrifice of the mass is a likeness of the sacrifice of Christ's death upon the cross. And then I am asked whether I know not that sacraments are not likenesses of other things: and Augustine is called to witness, with much ado, as though it is all one to have sacraments which are similitudes of Christ's death, and to have a sacrifice of similitude or likeness, which I said truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that there should be any shadows or resemblances, when the body and substance it self is come: which I spake, supposing that Allen by likeness of the exemplar, meaneth the mass with all the apish pageants thereof, to be like the sacrifice of Christ's death. And indeed it was that monstrous saying of Allen, which I wondered at. By likeness of y ^e exemplar (as indeed being in another manner the very selfsame. But Bristow setting a good countenance, upon so great an absurdity, asketh what boy hath not heard it said, of one & the same man being changed by age, sickness, apparel, shaving, &c. he is like or unlike himself? But tontrariewise, what boy in Oxford or Cambridge, would not reply, that this similitude or likeness or unlikeness, is of two several shapes, and not of one and the same substance unto it self: as Allen saith, the sacrament is like the body of Christ, and is the very same in another manner that is under couerture of accidents that belong to another kind of substance. But Bristow is not so quick to understand me where I understand not myself as he weeneth, where I say: neither will it help, that Allen saith, it is the selfsame in another manner, so longe as the same respect remaineth: I am sorry that Bristow is so dull headed, that he cannot understand, what the same respect meaneth in opposition, which if it not observed in the things opposed, they are not always opposite, and specially relatives who hange altogether upon respect. But Bristow asketh who can imagine, that the very same respect remaineth, when the same manner doth not remain?

Why sir? what is the respect of the likeness of the sacrifice of the mass, with the exemplar? seeing you confess the manner tobe unlike, but the very identity of the thing sacrificed, which is the monster that I marvel at: as also that you cannot imagine the same respect, where there is not the same manner. Is not God, the father of our Lord Christ, in the same respect that Abraham is the father of Isaac, but yet after a far other manner? yea, to follow your own wise examples, is not Abraham father of Isaac in the same respect, when Isaac is young, and when he is old; when he is clothed, and when he is naked; when he is shaven, and when he was bearded; when he is sick, and when he is whole? Such are the manners in which you hold that the sacrifice of the mass, is the same after another manner.

The 13. is where I attribute to diuorsement, which the scripture in many places doth deny to diuorsement, and doth attribute only to death. What is it? to make her no wife, that was a wife. Verily diuorsement for adultery maketh her no wife, that was a wife, as is gathered even by those texts of scriptures which Bristow quoteth Matt. 5. & 19. Mark. 10. &c. where the exception of fornication, maketh the case to be the same that was used by permission of the law, in diuorsementes, and marriage after diuorsementes. But Bristow saith, I utter herein my skil, in many things. As in saying that marriage after diuorsements is dispensed with all by the Pope. And do I not say true, although the Popes law denieth such marriage to be lawful? Are there not many examples of such dispensations?

Secondly I say, that the Popes canon law hath far many more causes of diuorsement then for adultery. Bristow distinguisheth the perpetual diuorse, for adultery, where the innocent party cannot be compelled to receive the guilty party, although he become never so chaste; and separation, where the fury of a man is so great, that the wife is in danger of her life: asking if we do not allow her to dwell away from him until he be amended: No verily, but we would compel him to lie in prison from her, until his amendment might sufficiently appear. But what saith your law, concerning frigiditie, concerning error in the condition of the person, as if she marie a man which is bond, whō she supposed to have been free &c. Doth not your law allow diuorsements perpetual in such cases? But where I wish that adulterers might be punished with death, first he quarelleth, as though I held that the Judicial law were still to be observed: as though it be not free in such points, as it is convenient for other common wealths to receive it, albeit, it is not necessary. Secondly he holdeth that a man was not punished by death, if he sinned against his wife with a single woman. Whereas the case is expressly of a single man, lying with another ' man's wife, or of one that was betrothed to another man, which must needs be all one, of a married man lying with a single woman. Levite. 20. and Deut. 22. And yet he noteth mine ignorance of the law: because I charge the Papists to allow dispensation for such persons to marie, as the law of God and nature abhorreth. Then he asketh me, what law of God do I mean? but Leu. 18? and whether I think that law to bind Christians? Yea verily, for the sense of nature abhorreth all those forbidden coniunctions. What else moved the heathen Romans to make laws even of the same? But Bristow bringeth in God's dispensation in the Old Testament, which is false: for after the propagation of mankind, for which it was of necessity allowed, it can never be proved that God allowed any one of those marriages forbidden. 18.

But the Pope dispenseth not only with marrying of the brothers wife in affinity, but even with the Uncle to marie his Niece, in consanguinity, as we see in the marriage of King Philippe of Spain in our days.

The 14. after such ignorance in God's law discovered, Bristow marueileth not if I be ignorant in the Popish Churches law and divinity, in making it a certain thing, that the Pope giveth his pardons by the sacrament of penance. Athough it be no great shame for me to profess mine ignorance in many of the popes laws & some part of his divinity: yet herein Bristow doth me wrong, to charge me to say absolutely, that y ^e Pope giveth his pardons by the sacrament of penance. As though the Pope being at Rome, might minister a sacrament to one in England. And that so great a D. doth not trow that the power of binding and loosing is exercised many other ways besides that sacrament. Seeing the Master of y ^e sentences comprehendeth under the title of the sacrament of penance, all that power or whatsoever he can inquire or define of it Lib. 4. Dist. 14. 15. 16. 17. But if sins may be forgivē in popery without repentance, & that y ^e Popes pardons require no repentance in them that should take y ^e benifite of them, it is one point of popery that I am content to confess that I have learned of Bristow.

The 15. point is, that I am ignorant in our own divinity, because I wonder that a Papist should say, that God sometime punisheth sin with sin, and complain that when we say, but half so much, they chardge us to make God the auctor of sin. For Bristow asketh, if it be not a common position & large discourses vpō it in our masters books, that God is the author of sin? O impudent and malicious liar, hast thou read those books of Calvin Insti. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. & Melancthō. ad Rom. which thou quotest, and darest thou for shame of the world, if thou have no fear of God, to charge them with holding such a blasphemous positiō, when they in the same books do refute it, as an horrible slander which they never thought of: but always affirmed that God as a righteous judge, not as an evil author Ioseth Satan, and useth his ministry for the punishment of sin & sinners, and for the trial and amendment of his children as in David & Job? As for those blasphemies that God worketh sin in us by himself, willing, appointing, and predestinating us to sin, no less thē he, which leadeth a blind man out of his way &c. are nothing else but Bristowes lies & slanders always detested of those godly writers, & of all them that truly profess and embrace the Gospel.

The 16. point is of mine ignorance in histories ecclesiastical, as of the celebration of Easter by the Britons and Grecians, noted before and answered. Secondly because I say (as it seemeth) that Julianus the Apostate was Emperor after Valens the Arian. Surely where I learned that he was a persecutor of the Church, I might have learned the time of his Emipre, that he was next to Cōstantius, & after him Iouianus, Valentinianus, & Valens, & sure I am that I learned it out of Carions Chronicle 30. years ago. Which being so vulgar a matter, I thought none had been so malicious to charge me with ignorance thereof. But indeed he chargeth me very injuriously, for when I say after that when Julianus the Apostate was Emperor, I mean to show how persecution and Gentility was restored after that Constantine had given peace, beside the trouble of heresy which was in the time of Constantius and Constance, to whom I joined Valens, as agreeing in that same heresy of Arianism. Again where I said, the new Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue at the Emperors charges, for the increase of Christian faith among them: Bristow asketh me, what Emperor, or what faith, but Catholic or Popish? That which I said of the Syrian Testament, was to show that the Churches in Chaldea have preserved the scriptures, which yet are not subject to the Church of Rome; with the Emperors profession I dealt not, but his purpose I suppose, was to increase Christian faith, and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not increase Popish faith, seeing Papists are so unwilling, that the people should read the word of God in the native language.

Fourthly that I say the fathers alleging the succession of Bishops against heretics, specially named the Church of Rome, because those heretics for y ^e most part had ben sometimes of y ^e Church of Rome, as Valentinus, Marciō, Novatus. Against this Bristow telleth me, y ^t Allen speaketh also of the Arians, Donatists, and all heretics. But I spake of those fathers, that alleged the succession of Bishops, namely Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus, Cerdon and Marcion, that they were at Rome under Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession, and yet taught his heresy privily and was excommunicated. For Novatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome, Eusebius is clear. Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus, whereas Novatus had been of Carthage, but from thence was also gone to Rome. I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greek writers to be deceived, as Bristow saith, and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Novatus, and the other called Novatus in stead of Nauatus, which name was then in use. But seeing the person of the heretic is certain, it is folly to strive for his name, I have shown mine author for Novatus 〈◊〉 Rome, and so for the rest: wherefore I have not bewrayed any ignorance therein, as Bristow pretendeth.

The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is, where I show, wherein the communion of Saints consisteth: In that I say, one cannot merit for another, no not for him self, but every man hath his worthiness of Christ. As though (saith Bristow) neither Christ could merit for any other, no nor for him self, because he had his worthiness of God. But I say that Christ, because he was God, had his worthiness of him self, and therefore did merit for us. And see what secret blasphemy is contained in this comparison of Bristow: Where he would make a similitude of meriting between us which please not God, but only through his mercy; with Christ, who satisfied the justice of God. But Bristow chargeth me so to define the communion of Saints, that I allow no place for the prayers of y ^e members alive, made for others y ^t are alive. A vile slander, when I speak of the grace and gifts of God, which as everyone hath received of God, so of charity he is bound to employ the same to the profit of his fellow members here on earth. But if we be bound of charity to pray one for another (saith Bristow) why are not these members in heaven as well? Because there is not a law appointed for them that are in heaven, and them that be in earth, we know prayer is commanded us, we know not any prayer commanded them: neither are we to trust to any such thing. But the Scripture saith, that Christ's friends do rejoice in heaven with his penitents in earth, It saith so in deed of the Angels, and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirits, but of their knowledge: and if their knowledge were certain, yet it followeth not, that they pray for the conversion of sinners: and much less that the mutual offices of love, whereby one member hath compassion with another, can by any means touch the state of the dead, to receive any benefit thereby. But another quarrel is, where I make the communion of the whole body, to be the participation of life from Christ the head. If this be all (saith Bristow) then there is no communion. For what communion were it between the members of your natural body, if they did only receive life from your head, and could not use the said life to profit one another? &c. This man hath great leisure to trifle without any matter. Who so shall read my words, Pur. 199. which he quoteth, shall find me to say, That the communion of the whole body, is the participation of life, and all other offices of life that every member and the whole body hath of the head, as S. Paul teacheth plainly. Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life, for one member to assist another in that it may, and as it ought, I have comprehended it, but that Bristow doth willfully hold my saying, and then play with it at his pleasure. Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen: that he will have other works & ways of salvation, besides y ^e blood of Christ, because he groundeth all works and ways of salvation in the blood of Christ. But I reporting his words truly, by plain distribution do gather, that Allen will have other works and ways of salvation beside the blood of Christ: except you will say, that is no way nor work of salvation of it self, without these ways and works of men. If the blood of Christ of it self be one way and work of salvation: and there be other ways and works, though grounded in it, then are there more ways and works of salvation, than the only redemption of Christ, which I understand by the blood of Christ, so I have done Allen no injury, but he hath offered heinous injury to the blood of Christ, and so do all they which mixed it with any to purchase God's favor, who is reconciled by none other merit or satisfaction, but only by the blood of the cross of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise forever more.

In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion, Bristow doth only show, y ^t there is in my two books stuff enough to make another book as big as this, to the discredit of my party. I trust this book of his, as big as it is, hath wrought no discredit to the cause I maintain, because I have shown howe it is stuffed with lies, slanders, falsifications, and cavillations; such stuff he may have great store in the devil his masters school, to make a book ten times as big as this was: but for so much as he hath not answered any one of mine arguments, or refelled any one of mine answers to Allen, in any right order, leaving the defense of him (as he pretendeth to defend the Church, I confess he hath left matter sufficient, for any man, that will undertake the confutation of my books (which this his unorderly and insufficient reply, notwithstanding) I protest to remain still in their strength and unanswered.

GOD BE PRAYSED.

The cavils of Nicholas Sander D. in Divinity, about the Supper of our Lord, and the Apology of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof, confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Divinity.

MAN HV, what is this?

The figure.

Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath given, &c.
The prophecy.

Prouerb. 9. Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mixed for you.
The promise.

John 6. The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.
The performance.

Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gave saying: take eat, this is my body which is given for you.
The doctrine of the Apostles,

1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is the communicating of the Lord's body.
The belief of the Church.

Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit. Both our Lord hath professed, and we believe it to be flesh in deed.
The custom of Heretics.

Tertul. de resur. car. The contrary part raiseth up trouble, by pretence of figures.

T Hese notes and sentences, D. S. hath set before his book, as the pith and martowe of all his treatise. In which, as he pleaseth himself not a little, so he showeth nothing, but his ignorance, vanity, and falsehood. His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrew words: Man Hu, which do signify, This is a ready meat, prepared without man's labor, as even, the author of the book of Wisdom expoundeth it. Which Samder readeth interrogatiuely, following the error of some old writers, which could put no difference between the Hebrew, and the Chaldee tongs. For Man in Hebrew signifieth not what, neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so, but Manna hu, that is, This is Manna, that is to say, a ready meat. Again, he showeth him self ignorant in the Apostles doctrine, when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament, which the Apostle plainly affirmeth to have been the same spiritual meat, which the sacrament is to us. 1. Cor. 10. His vanity appeareth, that when he can rack never a saying of the Prophets to his purpose, he dreameth of a prophecy in the Proverbs of Solomon, which book was never accounted of wise men for prophetical, but doctrinal: and this pretended prophecy is an allegorical exhortation of wisdom to embrace her doctrine, and not a prophecy of Christ instituting his sacrament: an inviting of men in Solomon's time, and all times, to study wisdom, and not a foreshowing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come. In the words which he alledgeth, for the promise of the sacrament, is discovered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture, to pervert the meaning of Christ, which is of his passion, unto the institution of the sacrament thereof. For the words of our Savior Christ, John. 6. 51. are these: And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. These last words (which I will give) Sander hath fraudulently omitted, y ^t this promise might seem to be referred, not unto the passion of Christ, in which he gave his flesh for the life of y ^e world, but unto the giving of the sacrament of his flesh, in his last supper.

In the title of performance, he omitteth to show, what Christ gave: when he said, This is my body, that he might seem to have given nothing but his body, whereas the Evangelists teach, that he brake and gave the bread, which he took, affirming it to be his body. The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not hold, because he neither breaketh bread, which he denieth to be in the sacrament, nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lord's body, which he alloweth to be received of the reprobate, which have no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament, or outward sign to all men, and giveth the heavenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament, even unto wicked men. The belief of the Church which Hilary professeth, Sander maintaineth not: for Hilary saith, that we do truly eat the flesh of the body of Christ, sub mysterio under a mystery, & per hoc vnum erimus, and by this we shall be one with him and the father, which cannot be understood of the Popish corporal receiving.

Last of all, he followeth the custom of heretics, which is to draw men's sayings inio a wrong meaning, for Tertullian in the place by him alleged, speaketh not of such heretics, as pretended a figure in the sacrament, where none should be acknowledged, but he him self, by that the bread is a figure of the body of Christ, proveth against Marcion the heretic, that Christ had a true body. ad Marc. lib. 4.

To the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, all honor, praise, and thanks be given forever.

I Can not tell whether I should complain more of the vanity, or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle: the form whereof being so new and strange, that the like was never heard of in the Church of Christ, every word almost containeth a great and gross heresy. For not content to make the sacrament the very natural body and blood of Christ, he maketh it the very essential deity it self. For unto whom is all honor and glory dew, but unto God himself? Again, seeing he joineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise, by this form of greeting he doth either exclude them; or if he will comprehend them, for that inseparable unity which they have with the godhead of Christ, he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresy, that God the father and God the holy Ghost, is with the body and blood of Christ, under the forms of bread and wine. Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians, which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgins Marie, and was crucified as well as God the Son. Even so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle, if he deny not honor, glory, power, and presence everywhere unto the Father, and the holy Ghost, yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Son, and God the Son with his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine. For thus he writeth: I adore thee my God and Lord, really present under the forms of bread and wine. To which also he saith: And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it, but unto thee alone? Or of whom should I crave the protection thereof, but of thee? seeing thou only art a meet patron for the defense of any book, which only art always present, wheresoever and whensoever it shall be examined. To the honor therefore of thy body and blood, I offer this poor mite &c.

By these words you see, that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD, nor Lord, but him that is really present under the forms of bread and wine: except he acknowledge more God's and Lord's than one. And consequently, y ^t either he acknowledgeth not God the Father, and God the holy Ghost, or else he acknowledgeth him present under the forms of bread and wine, without distinction of persons, and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speeches cannot help him in this case, seeing he will admit no figure, but a most proper speech in these words: This is my body. Whereas it is evident to all men, that are not obstinately blind, that if Christ had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him self is, and would have declared the same in proper speech, he would not have said: This is my body, and this is my blood, which is but a part of him, and the lowest part of him; but he would have said, take, eat, this is Jesus Christ, or this is all y ^t I am. But when he saith: this is my body, & this is my blood (which if it be not a figurative speech, should be a dead body and a senseless blood) he showeth manifestly, that he commendeth not a meta physical transmutation of the elements into his natural flesh and blood: but an heavenly and divine mystery, teaching us and assuring us that God the son being joined with us in the nature of his humanity, which he hath taken unto him, by the spiritual virtue of his body broken and blood shed for us on the cross, doth wonderfully feed us and nourish us, as it were with meat and drink, unto eternal salvation, both of body and soul. If any man think that I refer the words of Sander, to the Sacrament, which he speaketh of the divinity of Christ generally, let him read the whole Epistle, and comparing it with the title of salutation which I have set down in his own words, consider whether Sander, professing that he speaketh therein to the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, can be reasonably understood of Christ, after any other sort then under the forms of bread and wine. Wherefore such bold speeches as he useth in this dedication, tending to so gross heresy, were a declaration of his proud stomach, now broken forth into heinous treason against his own country, and actual rebellion against his sovereign and natural Prince.

But thou O Lord Jesus Christ our only Savior and Redeemer, whom we adore and worship, as our King and God, not under the accidental shapes of bread and wine, but above all principalities and powers, sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternal father in heaven, to whom with thee and y ^e holy Ghost, we give all honor & praise forever, vouchsafe (if it be thy holy will) to convert these enemies of thy majesty, unto y ^e true understanding of thy blessed word, or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit, so require, show forth thy glorious might in their speedy overthrow and confusion, that we thy humble servants, beholding thy wonderful judgments, may laude and magnify thy holy name, as well in the salvation of thine elect, as in the destruction of thine enemies, to thine everlasting praise and renoune forever and ever.

Amen.

The preface to the Christian reader.

THe proposition of this painted preface, is y ^t the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest authority that may be found in that kind, which Sander assumeth to be the use, custom and practice of the Catholic Church. This assumption is false, although if it were true, it helpeth the Papists nothing at all, which cannot show the practice of the Catholic Church of all times, for any error, which they maintain against us. The greatest authority in expounding of the scriptures, is of the holy Ghost, whose iudgemenr cannot be certainly found, but in the scriptures them selves: wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God, is of greater authority then y ^e practice of men. The scriptures inspired of God, are able to make us wise unto salvation, they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good works. 2. Tim. 3. Wherefore the practice and custom of God's people, must be examined by the scriptures, and not the scriptures expounded after it. Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith. Rom. 12. But faith is built upon the word of God, and not upon the custom of men: therefore exposition of the scriptures, must be according to the word of God, and not after the usage of men.

The example which Sander useth, to confirm his false assumption, is of baptising of infants of Christians, before they be taught, which doctrine he denieth to be proved by the order of Christ's words, Matth. 28. but by the use and consent of all nations. To this I answer, that the use and consent of all nations, were not sufficient to warrant the baptism of infants of the faithful, except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places: As is manifest in the institution of circumcision. According to the covenant whereof, the Apostle saith, that all our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithful are holy, therefore to be admitted to baptism, 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in God's covenant, according to which scriptures they are baptized, & the infants of Jews or Gentiles refused, and not only upon the ground of the Churches custom and use therein (as Sander affirmeth,) which custom is good, because it is grounded upon the Scriptures, but the scripture is not authorized by that custom. Wherefore popish confirmation, and adoration of the body of Christ in the sacrament, (although he falsely affirmeth, that they are the like custom of the Catholic Church) are Iewde and ungodly practices of the Papists, because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures, but are proved contrary to the same.

But whereas we allege the judgment of the fathers of the Church, for six hundred years after Christ, to be against transubstantiation and adoration: Sander replieth, that things vncertein, must be judged by things certain, and not contrariwise. This principle is true: but it is false, that the judgment of the fathers in the first six hundred years is uncertain: as also, that those four certeinties which he rehearseth, be either all certeinties, or certainly on his side. The first is the words of the scripture, This is my body: about whose understanding is all the controversy, and therefore no certainty that they are on their side, more then these words are certain on our side against transubstantiation. The bread which we break, &c. so often as ye eat of this bread, &c. The second is false, that in the Catholic church, all men worshipped the real body of Christ under the forms of bread, &c. for it is the practice only of the Popish Church, and that but of late years, never admitted by the Oriental churches, beside many churches and members of Christ's Church in the West, that ever did abhor it. Thirdly, the Council of Lateran, kept 350. years past, was no general Council of all that profess Christianity, but only of the Papists: no more was any that followed, at Constance, Basil, Trent, nor yet that of Florence, in which, although there were some Grecians, yet the council of Basil, was against it, and many Oriental Churches, that were never called to it, neither was there anything for transubstantiatiō, or adoration, therein agreed by the Grecians, that were there.

For in the last session it is thus recorded:

Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis, summus pontifex petiit, vt de diuina panis transmutatione, quae quidem quarta quaestis fui • in Synodo, ageretur. At Graeci dixerunt, se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae▪ • authoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse, cùm pro illa taunt • m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit. Which four questions, being dissolved, the Pope desired, that of the divine transmutation of the bread, which was the fourth matter in controversy, it might be treated in the synod. But the Grecians said, that they without the authority of the whole Oriental▪ Church could handle none other question, seeing the synod was called together, for that only question, of the proceeding of the holy Ghost.

Fourthly, although Berengarius, was condemned by three Popish councils, and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretic, yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures, and the judgment of all the ancient Church, for six hundred years and more, after Christ, and was also received by diverse learned preachers in his time, the same being now taught in England, is true doctrine, and no heresy. Wherefore, none of the four certeinties, are certain and true on Sanders side. But he will examine us, what Gospel, what Church, what councils we have.

First he saith we can bring no Gospel, where it is written, This is the figure of my body: Neither do we affirm, that it is only a figure of his body, nor deny that it is his body, after a certain manner, as Augustine saith. And Sander will not deny, but that it is a figure, which were not true, except it were proved out of the Gospel, which speaking of the Cup, saith: This is the new Testament in my blood. And what Gospel doeth Sander bring? saying, This bread is turned into my body.

To the seconde demand, I answer: The primitive Church, for six hundred years, did believe of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, as we do, during which time, as there was no controversy, so there needed no general Council to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine.

As there are many other articles agreed on both partes, which were never decreed in general Councils: because there never was question about them. But when the question did arise, it was in the time of the prophesied defection, from Christ unto Antichrist, and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed, so that no general Council could be gathered about it, neither yet can, by means of the civil dissention between Princes that profess Christ, and the tyranny of heathen Princes, which hold many partes of the Church in miserable captivity and slavery.

But the first six hundred years (saith Sander) make not for the Sacraments, which is declared invincibly, by three means:

First, diverse fathers require us instantly to believe these words, This is my body, &c. although they seem to be against natural reason and sense. And yet no wise man will require us to believe figurative words.

O shameless and senseless heretic! will not every wise man require us to believe all the figurative words of holy Scripture? Are not these words true, although they be contrary to natural reason & sense? The rock was Christ, I am the true vine, I am the door, &c? and if these words are true, are they not to be believed of us, in their true meaning? even so these words: This is my body: are true in their meaning, and therefore credit is worthily required to be given unto them. The seconde reason is, that the same fathers teache expressly, that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries, which is a loud lie, understanding it of popish adoration. The third reason is, because the fathers teache, that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ, in the worthy receiving of the blessed sacrament. But this is false: for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a sign, of our natural and corporal conjunction with Christ, which is by his incarnation: for our conjunction by the sacrament, is neither natural, nor corporal, but spiritual unto the body and blood of Christ crucified for us. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding, the six hundred years make still for us. Yet can we not assure our selves of the first six hundred years (saith Sander) by the writings of the fathers of those times, because none of them goeth about to prove, that the body of Christ is not under that, which the Priest blesseth, &c. or warned the people to beware of idolatry, or have used such words, as the Sacramentaries do now use. If Sander had not in him more impudency then learning, he would not reason from authority negatively, although his negatives are not all true. For some of the old writers deny in express words, the sacrament to be the very body of Christ: Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatry in worshipping the sacrament, it argueth, that none in their time did worship it, seeing you Papists confess, that idolatry may be committed in worshipping the Mass cake, if it be not consecrated, and therefore teach men to worship it, with this condition, when they see it, if it be consecrated. Such words as the fathers used in explication of the mystery, we • use when we teache, that it is a figure, a token, a representation, a signification, a similitude, a symbol, a type of the body and blood of Christ; and what words soever we use, we utter none contrary to their meaning, and teaching, of the holy sacrament. But (saith Sander) that they call the sacrament a figure or holy sign, it hindereth not the real presence, because signs instituted by Christ, have real truth in every sacrament. Neither do we say the contrary, but that the real truth of Christ's body, is given unto us in the sacrament of the supper, even as the holy Ghost is given us in the sacrament of baptism, and yet we deny the bread which is the sign, to be turned into the natural body of Christ, even as we deny the water, which is likewise the sign, to be converted into the substance of the holy Ghost. But the fathers (saith Sander) are not against the doctrine of the Papists, because no Papist findeth fault with them. By the same reason, he might prove, that none of the Jury which have found a thief guilty, did go against him, because the thief challenged none of them. And yet Gardener & others challenge Theodoret & Gelasius. Again he saith, The fathers are against the Protestants, because they excuse Hilary, Chrysost. Cyril, by the figure of Hyperbole, which is a Rhetorical lie, but in deed, this argument is a lewd lie, of one which knoweth neither Logike, nor Rhetoric, but like a young smatterer, or a sophistical caviller. For the figure of Hyperbole, is not a lie, more then any other figure of Rhetoric, in the true understanding thereof, whereas after wrong understanding, even that which is spoken without all figure, is false, and untrue. Finally, whereas he chargeth us to deny the works of the ancient writers, Dionysius, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Abdias &c. that is a loud lie, shadowed neither with Rhetoric nor reason: for we deny not the works of those fathers, but we refuse counterfeit works falsely ascribed to them, which thing if we prove not by manifest demonstration, we require no credit. As for that which he cavilleth against master Nowel, I omit, as being confuted by master Nowel him self. But where he saith, the scriptures would never abide him, that should say: This is not my body: I answer, we never say: This is not Christ's body, after any manner: but this is not his body after a gross, carnal, or natural manner, and that saying the scripture will abide, even as well as this, The rock was not Christ, naturally, substantially, or essentially, although the scripture say, The rock was Christ. Or this: Christ was not a vine, properly, naturally, or substantially, notwithstanding, that he saith: I am a very or true vine. The proud brag which Sander maketh, that popish Catholics lack no scripture, for any of their assertions, how true it is, let all men judge: seeing that for many things they confess they have nothing to show, but tradition unwritten. Likewise, how aptly in this controversy of the supper, he hath examined the words of Christ's supper, noted the circumstances of things done and said there, conferred the scriptures of both the testaments, and joined the fathers of the first six hundred years. And yet he favoreth him self so much in his doing, that he boldly affirmeth us to have no help of those things. For scriptures we cannot confer, to make the words of the supper plain, because Doing, and the words thereof, are more plain then any other place of scripture, concerning it, as y ^e passion of Christ is more plain, then the law and Prophets. &c. If this were true, the Apostles labored in vain, to prove the passion of Christ, out of the law and the Prophets, and the rest of the writings of the Apostles, are needless, and uncertain instruction, if the history of the passion, doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be known, concerning it. But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander: That if the words of the supper be figurative, none other can be plain: as though figurative speeches, cannot be plain, when they are used for playnesse sake, of them that know how to use them. And because Sander chargeth us, Tell me masters &c: I say likewise: Tell me masters, Are these words recorded, to be spoken in the institution & action of the supper? This is the New Testament in my blood. Tell me I say, are these the very words which Christ then spake, or the interpretation of them? If they be the very words, which of you will say, they are not figaratiue? If they be y ^e interpretation, then are they more clear & plain, then those words which he uttered: This is my blood. Now whether the judgment of the primitive Church, for the first 600. years maketh for us, as it hath in many treatises, so in this that followeth, it shall be shown sufficiently. Last of all, it will appear, both by the scriptures, and testimony of the fathers, that the judgment of the external senses, or natural reason, was not the first argument that might move thē that first departed from antichristianitie, to the ancient & true understanding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper. Of y ^e almighty power of Christ we doubt no more, then of his will revealed in scriptures, in which seeing we learn, y ^t Christ concerning his humanity, was made like us in all things, except sin: and that our bodies, after the resurrection, shall be made like to his glorious body, Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation, we may not reasō of his power so, that we should overthrow his will. For he is almighty to do whatsoever, he will, & not willing to do whatsoever he can. But of y ^e whole matter, we shall entreat more at large, as occasiō is given, in the books following.

CAP. II.

Certain notes about the use, and translation of holy scripture, to be remembered of him, that shall read this book.

Sander, prosessing that he followeth most, the vulgar Latin translation, and lest the English Bible, because it almost never translateth any text well, whereof any controversy is in these our days, taketh in hand to prove, many falsifications and wrong translations, in the only matter of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. The first is John the 6. ver. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Operamini cibum permanentem, The true English were: work the meat which carrieth. The English bible turneth: Operamini, labor for. We labor (saith he) for that which we seek, and 〈◊〉 not; we work that stuff, which is present with us. This corruption the Sacramentaries have used, because they do not believe the meat which taryeth to be made really present, so that we may work it by faith and body. This final cause is falsely alleged, for we believe the meat that tarrieth unto eternal life, to be made really present by faith, to them that receive the sacrament worthily. Contrariewise, the papists hold, that the same meat is received, where it taryeth not unto etetnall life, namely in the wicked. And concerning the corruption pretended, it is false: which Sander saith, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth always to work, that which is present, and not to labor or seek for that which is absent: for saint Paul writeth, 2. Thessa. 3. ver. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Si quis non vult operar • : If any man will not labor, neither let him eat. Every man cannot work that stuff which is present, as in Sanders example of a Carpenter, working a piece of timber, therefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to labor generally, either in seeking that which is absent, or in working that which is present. Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander, and a manifest corruption of the text, by leaving out such words as show the vanity of this cavil, and overthrow the difference of this distinction: For the words of Christ are these, speaking to the Jews which sought him being absent, not because they saw his miracles, but because they had been filled with his bread. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Labor ye, not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is but once set down, which must be referred as well to the meat which perisheth, as to the meat which taryeth; but being applied to the meat which perisheth, it cannot be turned, Work not the mere which perisheth, as stuff that is present, but Labor not or seek not for it (as you do) which is absent, therefore it must be so turned, as it may serve for both. And where as Sander saith, that this meat is not labored for, because it is not sought out by our diligence, but given by Christ: it is a fonder reason, except you will say that we must not labor for any good things, because all good things are the gifts of God. Finally, that you may see what a singular quarrelling, & vain glorious person he is, to seek a knot in a rush, you shall understand y ^t the papists themselves translate this place even as y ^e great bible doeth: namely Heskins, as well learned a Papist as Sander: lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popish Parliament.

The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified, is ver. 57. of the same chapter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Qui manducat me, & ipse viuet propter me. The true English is, He that eateth me, he shall also live for me. The english bible readeth, he that eateth me, shall live by the means of me. The best color of his cavil, is that propter patrem, is translated in the same ver. For the father. Howbeit, seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or propter, signifieth the efficient cause, there is no fraud in turning it, By the means of me, which is the same that is meant by, For me: and as I think was so turned by the translators, to show that, For the father, includeth not the final cause, as it might seem, but the eternal efficient cause of life. As for the cavillation, that a man may live by means of him, which is absent, is altogether childish and ridiculous: for who can understand him to be absent, which is eaten? The controversy is not of the presence: but of the manner of the presence. But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ? He that eateth me, shall live by me, or for me, when they affirm that wicked men eat him, which live not by him, for this is generally true of all that eat him, and not to be restrained to them that eat him worthily. For the Sacrament in deed, may be eaten unworthily, but Christ himself, is not eaten, but where he giveth life.

The 3. corruption observed by Sander, is verse. 58. of John. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Qui manducat hunc panem, viuet in aeternum: The true English were, He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. The Bible doth english it, He that eateth of this bread. The adding of this word, Of▪ may be the Printers fault: for many translations read without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying, he that eateth of this bread, used by Christ before, verse 51. here can be no corruption, or falsification proved. As for the distinction, which Sander maketh, between, eating Christ, and eating of Christ, eating his flesh, and eating of his flesh, is friuolus and vain: for none eat of him, but they which eat him. Yes (saith he,) Of him we may eat, without the Sacrament, but him self we properly eat, only under the form of bread. Howe untrue this is, you may see by this argument: None can have eternal life, except they eat Christ and the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood: But many have eternal life, which eat not the Sacrament: Therefore many eat Christ, and the flesh of Christ, which eat not the Sacrament. John. 6. ver. 53. & 57.

The 4. falsification is, in S. Matth. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cùm accepisset Jesus panem, & gratias egisset, fregit, & dedit discipulis, & ait. The true English is, Jesus having taken bread, and given thanks (or blessed) brake and gave to the disciples, and said. The common Bible readeth: Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave i • to the disciples. The holy scripture saith not, that Jesus brake it, neither that he gave it, but that he brake and gave. Again in saint Mark saint Luke, and saint Paul, five times putting the particle (it) which is neither in the Greek, nor in the Latin Bible. Who would think, that an ancient man would play the boy so kindly? What say you Sander, is not the particle (it) added, neither in Greek nor Latin? When the accusative case is once set down, and then follow transitiue verbs, is it the phrase of the Greek or Latin tongue, to add the particle it? You say he brake and gave, but not brake it, nor gave it. Will you teach us a new Grammar, that fregit and dedit be verbs neuters absolute? Or if you will say they be verbs active transitiues, lest the wild Irish boys, that go to the Grammar school, should hiss at you, as you go about your popish and traiterous commission, I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you, and ask you, what he brake, and what he gave? If he brake not and gave not it, which he took. If you say, he brake his body, and not the bread, because you say, he so gave his body, that he gave no bread, advise yourself, howe you will answer the breaking of Christ's body, which was but once broken for us on the cross, but yet not broken into several pieces, as that thing, whatsoever you will call it, was broken which he gave to his disciples. And this undoubtedly you mean, when you say, The words of saint Matthew, do not all stand in order, in so much as Christ said: the words of consecration, before he brake the sacrament, or gave to his disciples. And do you now complain of Saint Matthew for disordering y ^e words? Verily saint Mark, saint Luke, and saint Paul, place the words in such sort as saint Matthew doeth. And if all these Evangelists, and Apostles, do set the words out of order, whence come you, that will take upon you to set thē in order? Have you other places of scripture to prove this pretended inversion of order? And if you had, have you forgotten, what you did write even now in the preface; that if there be any obscurity found in the words of the supper, there is no other part of scripture that can clear them? But standing of the words out of order, and that in everyone that rehearseth them, must needs make vncerteintie and obscurity, yea this standing, or not standing out of order, may decide a great parte of the controversy: for if the words were spoken after he brake and gave, then he brake and gave bread. And seeing the placing of the words in all the Evangelists, and saint Paul favor this opinion, you shall not easily prove the contrary against so many faithful and prudent witnesses, which had a care to place the words in such order, as they should give no manifest occasion of heresy by disordering them.

The fifth corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 11, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hoc facite, the truest English were, make this thing. The fullest, do and make this thing. The common Bible readeth, in Saint Luke, this do. In saint Paul, This do ye. And that which is most abhominable of all, in the homily of the sacrament, it is translated, do ye thus. This great abomination, if in any book it be so found, is but the Printers fault, although in sense there be no great difference. But seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and facere signifieth to do, as well as to make, what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do? As for Sanders fullest translation, by doing, and making, is most absurd. For when a word hath two significations, no wise translator will render them both, but only that, which is most proper for the place, and doing is here more proper then making. For though it sound not absurdly, in Sanders blasphemous ears, when he saith: do this, is all one as if he had said, make this my body: yet y ^t the body of Christ should be properly said to be made, by mē, which was once made in y ^e womb of the virgin, by y ^e holy ghost, in all godly men's minds, it is both absurd and blasphemous. And that the word facite, is to be translated by doing, and not by making, it is evident by this, that S. Paul referreth it to the whole action of the supper, 1. Cor. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. This do, as often as you shall drink it, in my remembrance: &c So doth S. Cypryan manifestly lib.

2. Ep. 3. Caecilio. Quod si & à domino praecipitur, & ab apostolo eius hoc idem cōfirmatur & traditur, vt quoties • un{que} biberimus, in commemorationē domini, hoc faciamus, quod facit & dominus, inuenimur non obseruari à nobi • quod mandatum est, nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus: Et calicem pari ration miscentes, à diuino magisterio non recedamus. If then it be commanded by y ^e Lord, & the same thing is confirmed and delivered by his Apostle, that so often as we drink, we should do this thing in remembrance of our Lord, which our Lord himself did, we are found that we do not observe that which is commanded, except we also do the same things which our Lord did. And ministering the cup after the same manner, we depart not from his divine teaching.

Last of all Heskins the papist, and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do. Hesk. lib. 2. ca. 42 Where he cauileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing, it is without all shadow of reason, for by This, what can be understood, but, this thing? And seeing our English Pronown This, doth aptly answer the Greek pronowne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what need is it to add the word, Thing, which is not expressed either in the Greek or in the Latin?

The sixth falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke, and Saint Paul Luke, 22. 1. Corinth. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In meam commemorationem. The true English were, For the remembrance of me, or To the end I may be remembered. The common bible turneth, in the remembrance of me. A strange quarrel, if a man could understand it. A thing (saith he) may be donne best in the remembrance of a man, when the man is first remembered, and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him. And may not a man be first remembered and afterward a thing don for the remembrance of him? Or would Sander, that Christ should not be thought upon, before he see the Mass cake lifted up, which he saith is made for the remembrance of him? For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say: When my body is made by the priest, and lifted up to be adored, and all the people taught to bow down to the body of Christ, and to come with pure conscience to receive it, then Christ is remembered, by reason of his body made: and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith, do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. If this be the fulfilling of the scripture, then was it not fulfilled for more then a thousand years after Christ, until elevation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed. And then is it not fulfilled in any private Mass, where none of the people receive, nor yet be taught to receive it. Where he saith, that Christ cannot be remembered by eating of bread & drinking of wine, as the Sacramentaries would have it, so effectually, and with such contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as he requireth, but by following of his cross and death, by penance, by humility, by confessing our sins to his ministers, and taking absolution of them: I answer, the Protestants require not only eating and drinking, but preaching of the Lord's death, repentance, faith, love, and reverence in the receivers: as for the rest of popish trumpery, when he can show that Christ required, or the Apostles used, we will gladly admit it. In the mean time let the readers judge, how this later kind of remembrance, can be learned out of the former, which I have set down in his own words, of making, lyfting, adoring, &c.

Beside these great corruptions, there are other two small faults, in S. Paul. The first, 1. Cor. 10. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is turned, the partaking, where it should be, the communicating of the body & blood of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault, because the Catholic Latin translation, in one place calleth it participatio, a partaking: which is (saith he) when parte of a thing is taken, and not the whole. I think the translator used the word of partaking, because it is better known to English mē, then the term of communicating: Especially, seeing the Apostle useth both terms indifferently, as one. For in the next verse, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : The vulgar Latin is, Omnes qui de vno pane participamus: All we which do partake of one bread: And speaking of them which did eat the Sacrifices of Israelites, of which, everyone did not eat the whole, he said they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , communicators of the altar. And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles, he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , communicators with devils. And returning to the Christians, he saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . You cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. Wherefore in that translation, there is neither falsification, nor corruption, great or small. The last fault is, 1. Cor. 10. in the place by me cited: we all partake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which should de Englished of the one bread. For such strength hath the Greek article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & sometime the common bible turneth the Greek article into That. What say you, Sander, hath the Greek article such strength always? If you say so, you will be thought to be a simple Grecian. If only sometimes, you must show better reason then you do, why it hath such strength here, or else the English translation is good enough. For by the outward sign which is the partaking of one bread, the Apostle proveth the spiritual conjunction of all the faithful in one body, and useth not the name of bread siguratiuely, for that which Christ calleth the bread of life, &c. And unto this translation, agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying: The gift that is offered pertaineth to all the people,

quia in vno pane omnes significantur: per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet: because in one bread they are all signified: for in that we are one, we ought to receive all of one bread.

Of the same judgment is Jerome upon the very place, saying:

Omnes quidem de vno pane, & de vno calice participamus. We all partake of one bread & of one cup.

The like is Chrysost. & all the old writers in a manner. You see what shameless cavilling, & racking he useth, to make a show of corruption in the English Bible, against which his malice is so great, that he chargeth not the translators, but the English Bible to have turned, to have falsified, to have corrupted, as though that if there were any just fault to be found in y ^e translation, the English Bible should bear the blame for it, and be despised of all English men. God be thanked, that although it may not be denied, but some faults have and may escape the best translations, yet the translators have a clear conscience from falsifying, and corrupting, and the faults are not so great, that any pernicious error may be grounded on them, nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latin translation, which the Papists admit, as only Catholic & authentical.

CAP. III.

The state of the question between the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluini •• es, & Catholics, concerning the Sacrament of the altar.

This Chapter containeth no proof of anything, but only setteth down the bare assertions of Sander, upon every matter, which if they be false, it shall be as easy for me to deny, as for him to affirm them, referring the trial of every cause as he doth, unto the treatise following. First it is false, which he affirmeth, that from the beginning of the Christian Church, unto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greek and Latin openly professed the carnal presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. For the Greek church never received transubstantiation, nor yet taught so grossly of the real presence, as the Papists: nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists do. For after the words of Christ uttered in their liturgye, they pray thus unto God:

Fac panem quidem hunc, honorabile corpus Christi tui, quod autem in calice est, honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui, ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante. And make this bread, the honorable body of thy Christ, and that which is in the cup, the honorable blood of thy Christ, thy holy spirit changing them.

This was objected unto them in the late Council of Florence. It is also false, that he saith, no man in open pulpet, with the authority or toleration of any spiritual pastor, did preach the contrary: for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer, in open pulpet preached the same, as his homilies remaining in writing, are a plain testimony, as in

Hom. 5. Sept. quad. in. 6. John. Here it is needful for men to wite, that there ben two manner of meats, ghostly and bodily: but bodily is well known. But need were here to know how men should ghostly eat Christ. For no man that hath wit dreadeth, that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode. For else no man should be saved: for no man is an etene, to seed him thus bodily of Christ, and therefore it were to wit, how men should ghostly feed them thus. For Christ telleth in his words, how men should eat him ghostly, and to this, wite saith Christ here, that the words that he speaketh to them, be spirit and life, for such is wit of his words.

These words in their own kind ben such as were his other words, but wite of these words there is spiritual and man's life. Also Christ saith there soothly, that each man that shall be saved, shall be fed of Christ thus. But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christ's body: And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly food, for of bodily food of Christ may not two be fed together, and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food, by which many be fed far and near. Also the sermon of Aelsri • in the Saxon tongue, appointed to be said in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine. But I break promise to stand in con •• tation of so impudent lies. And where he saith a belee • e which had continued 600. years could not have been suddenly changed, it is very true, for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence, was not come unto full ripeness, before the Council of Lateran, which was more then 600. years after the first age of 600. years. And although the efficacy of error. prevailed by God's just judgment over a great part of the world, yet had Christ always his two witnesses, to protest against it, as Berengarius, Scotus, Waldo, Hen • icus de Gauduno, Wickliefe, &c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretics, yet seeing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholic faith, of the primitive church, grounded on gods word, their condemnation in an hundredth councils, can be no prejudice to the truth.

The mean that maketh present that blessed body (saith Sander) is transubstantiation, which being made present thereby, who can deny, but that it is a sacrifice above all other external kinds of worshipping, sith at the time of the consecration, it is given for us vnbloodily, as the words of Christ sound, Luke 22. which is given for you. But seeing S. Paul in exposition of the same words, saith: which is broken for you, who is either so ignorant, or so blasphemous to deny, that the giving in S. Luke, is to be referred unto his death and bloody sacrifice, which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all. Agayne, when all y ^e three Evangelists, speaking of the sacrament of his blood, say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is shed for many and for you, since at the time of the consecration it is shed for us, as well as his body is given for us; who is so shameless, to say, that it is given for us vnbloudily iny ^e sacrament? Or if the word of shedding being of y ^e pre •• nt temps or preterimperfect temps, must be referred to the passion which was afterward; who is so mad as D. S. to refer the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is, given▪ to a present giving or sacrifising?

But proceeding in his vain purpose, he showeth, that the faults of the popish clergy advanced by transubstantiation, caused them to be contemned of the people, which contempt by God's justice stirred up Martin Luther, like a proud king of Babylon, to come out of the North, to fight against Ierusalē. Can you forbear laugh ing? They that were carnal in the Popish Church, priests bishops to hold their livings, Abats and Monks for good pensions received this doctrine and gave up their abbies to the Prince. But this good hath Luther done, that he separated the good from the bad, especially from the Popish votary, the married Monk and vowed Priest, which saith, No man ought to vow chastity, condemning thereby, not only an infinite number of virgins, but also the blessed mother of God. To this I answer, that first of all he slandereth them, which deny the vow of chastity, or rather celebrate (for every man is bound to live chastely) to be lawful, for they deny it, to be lawful only to those which are not certain, that they have the gift of continency to continue with them long as they live. And as for y ^e vow of the virgin Mary, I pray you how proveth he that she made any? Because (saith he) she wondered how she might have a child, seeing she knew not any man. Wherunto her own reason might have replied that hereafter she might know a man, except she had vowed her self not to know at all any man. I answer, that though her reason might have so replied, for having a child, yet for having such a child, as should be the son of y ^e highest, reason could not satisfy her, and therefore she desired to be instructed by the angel, by what means it should be, without that any vow of virginity, can be concluded in any lawful form of argument, out of this place, by any Logician in the world. But contrariwise, that she was betrothed unto a man, it is an undoubted argument, that she vowed not virginity. For if she should have made any vow before her marriage, she would not have deluded her husband, to promise her body to him, when she had determined the contrary. If they say, she vowed after marriage: it is plain by the Gospel, she did it without her husbands knowledge, and therefore her vow could not be lawful. For before Joseph was instructed by the Angel of her case, his purpose was to have taken her home to him, and used her as his wife, until she was perceived to be with child, and then he would have privily forsaken her.

After this he showeth what were y ^e opinions of Luther, Zwinglius and Calvin, which he maketh to be three, in number, when by the consent of y ^e Churches of Heluetia & Sabandia it is manifest, that the judgment of Zwinglius and Calvin, concerning the manner of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of his supper, was all one. Now concerning that Calvin willeth us to go into heaven by faith, there to feed of Christ spiritually: Sander liketh it not, because our nature not being able to climme up to the seat of God in heaven, the son of God came down to us, to life us up into heaven, in taking upon him our human nature. So when our faith called for Christ to come from heaven to help us, he let down the cord of his humanity, and of his flesh and blood. And shall we now, when it is let down to be fastened in our bodies, and in the bottom of our hearts, by eating it really, shall we now refuse it, and say, we will go into heaven by faith our selves, and there take hold of Christ, whereby we may be delivered out of the deep vale of misery? As though the cord should have needed to have been let down, if we could have fastened our bodies to anything in heaven, and ye • our bodies are they which weigh down our souls chiefly. In deed, if the son of God, had not come down unto us, and joined our nature unto his, the anchor of our faith, could have had no hold in heaven. But seeing the son of God did not only come down unto us, but also is ascended from the earth, and hath carried us up into heaven with him, Eph. 2. ver. 6. he letteth no more down unto us the cord of his humanity, but we cast up the sure anchor of our souls, which is faith, entering into the inward parte of y ^t spiritual tabernacle, which is heaven, whither our forerunner Jesus is entered, being an high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 6. ver. 19. And unto this ascension by faith, the Apostle exhorteth us Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen again with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, set your mind upon things that are above, & not vpō things that are upon the earth. These authorities prove sufficiently, that we must go into heaven by faith our selves, for the son of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world, cometh no more down to us in his human nature, until he come again to receive us actually into the participation of his glory, according to his promise. John. 14. 3. But now let us see, what wholesome doctrine Sander teacheth in those his words even now set down. First, that faith pertaineth only to the fathers before Christ, and in them called for Christ to come down unto us, which when he is come, & daily letteth down the cord of his humanity, we have no need of faith to fasten it in our bodies and hearts, but of our hands. For faith he compareth to the tongue, by means whereof, help is called for, but when a cord is lett down, the use of the tongue is needeles, and the hands must be occupied. Therefore he saith: It is not sufficient for a man to use his tongue still, and to let his hands alone. So that by this kind of reasoning, eating it really, being let down, is the hand, that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies & hearts. Thirdly he holdeth, that Christ needed not to have ben incarnate, if men could have fastened their bodies to anything in heaven. Whereby he denieth, that the fathers of the old Testament by faith, were fastened in heaven, before the incarnatiō of Christ, restreining the virtue thereof, not only unto the time, since the same was actually performed, but also to the actual and carnal manner of conjunction of the body of Christ with our bodies, which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really.

To conclude, professing that he intendeth not to speak against the persons, but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries, specially against Zwinglius & Calvin, his purpose is, to prove out of the word of God: That Christ giveth in his last supper, the true substance of his flesh and blood, not only to our souls, by words of promise, but also to our bodies under the forms of bread and wine. Note here, that the giving, wherein is the controversy, pertaineth to our bodies, and not to our souls. Also that the giving of Christ's flesh and blood to our souls, if I understand this saying, is not really, but by words of promise: whereof it ensueth that they, which have not eaten the flesh and blood of Christ with their bodies, from the beginning of the world, are all perished, because none can have life in them, but they that have eaten his flesh and blood, which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten, really and in deed, but under the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament.

CAP. IIII.

What the supper of Christ is, according to the belief of the Catholics.

He promiseth to show, first, out of the word of god, and next out of the monuments of the ancient fathers, what the belief of the Papists is, concerning this sacrament. Although he esteemeth even Albertus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Alexander, &c. worthy of credit, by a rule of S. Aug. cont. • u. li. 2. because they lived before this question rose between the Sacramentaries & thē: by which rule so understood, we may esteem Berengarius, Bruno, Henricus de Gauduno, Waldo, Bertrame, &c. worthy of credit, because they lived long before this question rose between the Papists & us. Wherefore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered, not between what persons, but what time the question first arose between any persons, and so the fathers of the first 600. years are the best and lest partial witnesses.

Furthermore, he showeth that the supper of the Corinthians, was not the supper of Christ, but he had a supper of his own. And so rehearsing the words of the institution, out of the Eve 〈…〉 listes & S. Paul: he affirmeth • that we are informed by these words, the supper of Christ to be his own body & blood, given under the signs of y ^e bread & wine, whereupon he gave thanks, turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of his body & blood. That Christ giveth his body to them that receive the bread and wine worthily, it shall be no controversy between us. But that he giveth it under y ^e signs of bread and wine, understanding (as he doeth) signs for accidents, he should have proved out of God's word, if either he would or could have kept promise, likewise, that Christ gave thanks upon the bread and wine, and thirdly, that he turned the substance thereof into y ^e substance of his body & blood. But leaving other arguments for other places, & not being able to prove these things in any place, he will inquire, whether the name & nature of a supper be more agreeable to their belief, or to our meaning? that is (saith he) whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of common bread & wine, or of his own real body and blood. As though we affirmed, that the only substance of Christ's supper were common bread & wine, & not the body & blood of Christ. But to proceed, & let him go with that lie, his first argument to prove how deintie & costly a banket Christ made, taking his leave of his friends, is taken of the great preparatiō & promise made of it so long before, which promise & preparatiō, how evil favoredly he proveth out of Melchizedeks bread & wine, Manna, the table of David & Solomon, y ^e bread & flesh of Elias, &c, I omit. His conclusion is, we must not suppose, that Christ at his farewell, gave any other deinties, beside common bread & wine sanctified in use only, and not consecrated in substance. You may see, howe absurdly he speaketh, common bread sanctified, which is as good as if he would say, Christ gave white black bread, or hot cold wine. We affirm that y ^e bread & wine were consecrated, not in accidents, but in substance, to the use of an holy sacrament, y ^t they might be the body & blood of Christ, to as many as received the same worthily, not by conversion of the natural substance of one thing into another, but by a wonderful divine & unspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weak element, of y ^e world, to be a mighty food, unto eternal life. The second argument he useth to prove the excellency of the banket, is of the fine cookerie (I use his own term, which also he doth exemplify by making 16. or 20. dishes of eggs alone, which cannot be without many spices & mixture, & great labor, &c.) But Christ, like a most cunning workman, of simple & little stuff, and that without help of his disciples, to prepare it, made the gretest & finest feast that ever was heard of, using no shifts, but only blessing or thanksgiving. The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth, by a fine speculation of y ^e furniture of the world, by the Angels, heavens & elements, frō whence it pleased God to make a revolt of all things, from the bottom of the earth, upward again towards himself: And so made out of y ^e earth vegitatiue things, then sensible creatures, & last man, w ^t a reasonable soul, as a brief sum of all creatures, & a little world, who being seduced by the devil, was by the incarnation of y ^e son of God, restored, & then all things were briefly brought again to God. So that in this banket, where Christ is given, there is served in one dish a composition most delicate, of angels, heavens, elements, of herbs fishes, birds, beasts, of reasonable men, and of God himself. No kind of salet meats, sauce, fruits, consectiō, no kind of wine, aqua vitae, aqua composita, liquors, syrops, can be found in nature, made by art, d • uised by wi •• e, but it is all set upon this table, and that in a small ro •• e, &c. Thus do the Catholics teach of the supper of our Lord, and believe it agreeable to his word and worthy his worship. What say you, M. S. is this the doctrine of the Catholics? that the bread and wine, being turned into the body and blood of Christ, are also turned into Angels, heavens, elements, herbs, fishes, birds, beasts, men, & God him self? yea, into all salets, meats, sauces, fruits, confections, all kinds of wine, aqua vitae, aqua composita, all liquors and syrops, beside porredge, puddings, pyes, pancakes, and a great many other things, which you have not named, but comprehended in general words? Is there a real conversion in deed, by reason of your heraphicall reuolution? And is this doctrine agreeable to the word of God? In what place is it written, I pray you? I suppose it to be this: Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heaven, & which are in earth in him. Where the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , importeth a brief gathering into one certain head and sum, that all things in heaven and earth, are brought unto Christ, and in him as it were again, begun and renewed. And cannot this be done, except the body of Christ do really contain all things by your surmised revolt? for I dare not understand you siguratiuely, seeing you abhor figures in this matter of the supper; nor Hyberbolically, for that you count no better then a rhetorical lie. Wherefore, if these things be really contained, as you say, I think it small for the worship of Christ's banket, whose excellency I take to be so great, that it containeth not these gross meats of the body, but an heavenly refreshing of the soul. And that will the old fathers, whom you cite for your cookery, plainly testify with me. First Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Vident haec sacramenta, &c. The poor in spirit see these sacraments, and contenting themselves with this one dish, they despise all the delicats of this world, and possessing Christ, they disdain to possess any stuff of this world. Behold Cyprian saith nor, that this dish containeth all fowls, fishes, sauces, spices, &c. but that all these are despised of them y ^t are partakers of this dish. Again, speaking of the wicked, Et a secretis diuinis omnium intra se continentibus summam, diffugiunt & recedunt, &c. They fly and depart from the divine secrets, which contain within them selves the brief or sum of all mysteries.

He saith not, they contain meats and drinks, syropes and confections, but y ^e sum of all mysteries or heavenly, & divine treasures, But (saith Sander) when saint Cyprian saith, intra se, within them, he meaneth within the compass, or forms of bread and wine, for these only are the things that we can point unto, within or without: Belike he will teach us new Grammar, and new Latin also. For in our old Latin and Grammar, we learned, that sui and suus were reciproca, but Sander will teach us that, se, signifieth the compass or forms of bread and wine: Or if the word se, signify themselves, as it was wont to do, Sander will teach us, that the compass or forms of bread and wine, are the divine secrets themselves. For Cyprian saith y ^t the divine secrets within themselves contain y ^e sum of all mysteries. But mark his reason, and you will think that an Ox hath lowed it out, rather then a man spoken it. The compass or forms of bread, are y ^e only things y ^t we can point unto within, or without: for other meat & drink, we see not, quoth he. He will have nothing but y ^t he can point unto with his hand, and see with his bodily eye. Whereas divine secretes, whereof Cyprian speaketh, can neither be seen with the eye, nor pointed at with y ^e finger, but only be understood by faith, in them to whom God hath revealed them.

His next witness is Chrysostom: in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi, &c. When the body of Christ is set before thee, say with thyself: For this bodies sake, I am no more earth and ashes. For this I hope to receive heaven, and the good things which are in heaven, immortal life, the seat of Angels, the company of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soul, the bond of trust, the foundation, our hope, salvation, life. If we go hence pure with this sacrifice, with most great confidence, we shall ascend to the holy porch or entry, as it were compassed round about with golden garments. But what rehearse I things to come? whiles we are in this life, this mystery causeth, that the earth is heaven to us. Whatsoever Chrysostom saith here, we acknowledge to be true as he did mean it: but nothing he saith for Master Sanders reuolution, and as little for the carnal manner of presence or eating of Christ's body. For even as we are no more earth and asshes, & as earth is made heaven, which is after a spiritual manner by faith, and yet truly and undoubtedly, so is the body of Christ present & eaten, at y ^e table. According to which meaning he saith in the same homily,

Quemadmodū enim corpus illud vnitū est Christo, ita & nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur. For even as that body is vaited to Christ, so we also by this bread are joined in an union.

Note here, y ^t body & this bread to be diverse things in natural substance: & again our conjunction to be by the bread mystically: for naturally and substantially we are not joined one to another, but in an heavenly kind of union, we are made one body of Christ, and members one of another. And this is not an emptye dish of faith, as Sander calleth it, but a full mystery of salvation. And although faith shall cease when we have the full fruition of God's promises in heaven, yet doth Sander both absurdly, and unfaithfully gather thereof, an opposition of faith and truth, whereas faith hath thereof the name in Hebrew, because it is grounded upon truth. But what meaneth he by truth, that which he preferreth above the receiving by faith? Namely the carnal manner of receiving Christ's body, which he holdeth the wicked may do to their damnation. A worthy truth, in respect of which, saith is counted little worth as an empty dish, which yet by their own doctrine, must make their truth effectual to salvation. But see I pray you, howe cunningly he reasoneth of the final cause. Christ took flesh (saith he) that our bodies might have a banket made to them, as the souls of the faithful never lacked God, whom they might feed on by faith and spirit. By which reason the godly of the old testament, before Christ's incarnation, were but half nourished, namely in souls only, and not in bodies, if Christ's flesh be not a meat otherwise then received into the body, after the Popish meaning. Yet he supposeth, that Cyrillus favoreth this argument, In John. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiui • enim cert • , vt non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, ver • netiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gust • , tactu & cibo, ad immortalitatem reduceretur. For it behooved truly, that not only the soul should ascend, by the holy Ghost into the blessed life, but also that this rude, and earthly bodic should be brought to immortality, by tasting, touching, and by meat, which were of alliance with us. Cyril meaneth of the outward element, by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fed, so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortality. Therefore he saith, immediately after in the same place:

N •• putet ex tarditate mentis suae Judaeus, inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria: videbit enim, si attentiùs quaerit, hoc ipsum à Mos • temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse. Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit, quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum sae • iebat? nónne palàm est quia diuina institution perdocti, agni carnes manducauerunt, & posts ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt, propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse? pernicies námque, id est, carnis huius mors, aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat. Terra enim • s, & in terram reuerteris propter peccatum, • udiuimus. Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum, propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur, & o • inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati (Deo ita volente) perniciem essugiebant. Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris, praefiguratam veritatem iam videns? our inquam turbaris, si Christus dicit, Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis sanguinem eius, non habebitis vitam in vobis, cùm oporteret, Mosaicis te legibus institutum, & priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum, ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse. Neither let the Jew of the dullness of his mind, think, that we have invented such mysteries as were never heard of: for he shall see, if he will search more attentively, that the same thing hath been always done by figure, since the time of Moses. For what hath delivered their ancestors from the plague of the Egyptians, when death raged against y ^e first borne of the Egyptians? Is it not manifest, that they being taught by the institution of God, did eat the flesh of a Lamb and annointed the posts and upper door posts, with blood, and therefore death departed from them? For destruction, that is the death of this flesh, did rage against mankind for the transgression of y ^e first man. For because of sin we heard, Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt return. But because Christ by his flesh, was to overthrow this cruel tyrant, therefore that mystery was shadowed to the old fathers, and being sanctified with the flesh and blood of y ^e sheep (God so willing) they escaped destruction. Why therefore ô Jew, art thou troubled, seeing the truth already prefigured? Wherefore, I say, art thou troubled, if Christ say, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of Man, & drink his blood, you shall have no life in yourselves, whereas it behooved thee being instructed in the Law of Moses, & taught to believing by the old shadows, to be most ready to understand these mysteries?

This place of Cyril, showeth at large, that he meaneth not by taste and touching, or meat which is of alliance with us, the natural body of Christ, but the outward part of the sacrament: namely, the bread and wine: for of the body of Christ, there is neither taste, nor touching bodily in the sacrament. But even as by eating of the Lambes flesh, and anointing of the blood, which prefigured the flesh and blood of Christ, and was a meat of kindred or alliance with them, with whose taste and touching they were acquainted, the Jews were assured of their deliverance: so we by eating, and drinking these outward signs of Christ's body and blood, are assured of eternal life. For you must note, that he saith hoc ipsum the self same thing, was always done by figure, from the time of Moses. What was that? namely, that not only our souls by the holy Ghost, but also our bodies by external sacraments, were brought to immortality. But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christ's incarnation: therefore Cyril is nothing less then of the Popish meaning.

The last witness is Tertullian de resur. Carnis: The flesh is washed that the soul may be cleansed. The flesh is oynted, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is signed, that the soul may be defensed. The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hand, that the soul also may be illuminated. The flesh is fed with the body & blood of Christ, that the soul also may be made fat of God. They cannot therefore be parted in reward, whom work ioynesh.

We agree to that which Tertullian saith, y ^t our flesh is fed with y ^t body & blood of Christ, but not after a carnal or natural manner, by receiving the body and blood at our mouths, &c: but after a spiritual manner, as he himself showeth in the same book.

Nam quia durum & intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasse, vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis, promisit spiritus est qui vi • ificat. For because they thought his saying hard, and intolerable, as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eat̄ of thē verily, that he might dispose the state of salvation into the spirit, he said before: It is the spirit that quickeneth.

In these words Tertullian counteth it, the error of the Capernaites, to think that Christ determined, that his flesh should be eaten verily, meaning that his flesh was not to be eaten after a gross and natural manner, with the mouth and teeth, but with faith, and heart. Again the argument of the resurrection of our bodies, which he draweth of eating the body & blood of Christ, cannot stand but with a spiritual eating thereof. For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ, and so many thousand Christians as since that time have never received the sacrament, have of the resurrection of their bodies, if the virtue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating? Therefore Tertullian meaneth plainly, that the external sacraments, which are received with the body, & bear the name oftentimes of the things, whereof they are sacraments, are arguments and assurances, that salvation pertaineth both to the body and to the soul, and not that the body eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christ's body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, anymore then the body receiveth the holy ghost under the form of water, or imposition of hands &c.

What the supper of Christ is, according to the doctrine of the Protestants and Sacramentaries, with a confutation thereof.

He affirmeth that we say: Christ giveth to the body bread and wine, but to the soul he giveth himself by saith, spirit, and understanding. This he maketh to be all the banket of the new brethren. Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter. But either he is ignorant what we teach, or rather he is not willing to show it, that by rehersing it imperfectly, he might have more advantage to dispute against it. We believe, that Christ giving unto us bread and wine, as visible seals of his invisible grace, giveth to y ^e whole man, his body and blood, to be received of him by faith, after a spiritual and wonderful manner, passing all understanding of man, whereby we are assured, that we are spiritually fed, unto eternal life, evē as by the seal of baptism, we are assured that we are spiritually, and wonderfully washed from our sins, & born anew to be y ^e sons of God. We say not therefore y ^e god giveth himself by faith, spirit & understanding, to our souls only: but he giveth himself unto us, to be received by faith & spiritually. But now let us see what fault he findeth w ^t our saying: we say y ^e truth (saith he) but not all the truth. For this had been somewhat worth, before y ^e incarnation of Christ, whē Christ was eaten only by faith, but since his incarnation, he giveth us another kind of truth thē ever he gave to thē So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith, our fathers did all eat y ^e same spiritual meat y ^t we do, and drink the same spiritual cup y ^t we do, for they drank of y ^e rock, which rock was Christ, as substantially as y ^e bread and wine are his body & blood unto us. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth, because y ^e whole mā is not fed. I answer y ^t is no cause, for we hold y ^t the whole man is fed w ^t Christ, to be saved both body & soul. For where he •• ith, y ^t faith seedeth but y ^e soul, it is false: for God by faith feedeth both body and soul unto eternal life. But this is Sanders error, y ^t he thinketh Christ cannot feed our bodies by faith, except he thrust his body in at our mouths. He might likewise say, that in baptism we are but half regenerated in soul only, because the holy ghost is not poured over our bodies: yet we believe that we are washed & regenerated wholly both in body and soul, so that our bodies by baptism are engraffed into the death, burial, & resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we believe, y ^t by eating of this bread, & drinking of this cup of the Lord worthily, our whole man is fed after a spiritual manner, with the quickening flesh and blood of our savior Christ, unto everlasting life. And whereas Leo saith, That is taken by the mouth, which is believed by faith: he meaneth none othewise, then when the scripture saith, that baptism is y ^e laver of regeneration; and when we confess y ^t the body of Christ is eaten, when we mean the sacrament thereof is eaten bodily. In which sense, the same Leo writeth Epistel. 10. ad Plaui, against the heresy of Eutyches.

Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno, & aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi, intelligat vnde sāgnis & aqua esfluxerint, ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur & poculo. Let him see what nature being stricken through with nails, hath hanged on the wood of y ^e cross, and when y ^e side of him that was crucified was opened, let him understand, from whence y ^t blood & water flowed, y ^t the church of god might be moistened, both by a laver, & by a cup.

By these words he showeth, that y ^e blood in y ^e cup, is none otherwise y ^e blood of Christ, thē y ^e water of baptism, is y ^e water that issued out of his side, which is far from y ^e popish understanding. As for y ^e often eating & drinking, recorded in y ^e scriptures, in y ^e sacrifices, Manna, y ^e rock, water, y ^e Paschal lamb y ^e shewbread, & c: which Samder would have to be but figures of y ^e bodily eating of Christ's flesh: I answer they were sacraments of y ^e spiritual norishmēt of y ^e faithful appointed for that time, as this supper is appropriated to our time, and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit, could not otherwise be purged, from us, but by bodily eating of Christ's flesh, as he assurmeth. The sin of Adam was not in eating, but in eating disobediently, so that eating of it self, was no fault, nor any poison was in the nature of the fruit, that was eaten, as Sander dreameth, but disobedience was the sin of Adam, which by the obedience of Christ is done away as S. Paul teacheth, Rom. 5. ver. 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by y ^e obedience of one man many shall be made righteous. Neither doth Cyprian say otherwise, although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruit, De Coen. Dom. Bibimus &c: We drink of the blood of Christ himself commanding, being partakers of eternal life with him, and by him, abhorring the sins of natural lust as impure blood, & granting our selves by taste of sin to have ben deprived from blessedness and condemned, except the mercy of Christ, had brought us again unto fellowship of eternal life by his blood. Although Cyprian here allude unto the act in which disobedience was committed, yet in the end he showeth, that by the obedience of Christ shedding his blood for us, we are restored into the favor of God, and not by actual drinking of the natural blood of Christ into our bodies. Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus think otherwise, Cont. Collat, Liberum ergo arbitrium &c. Free will therefore, that is, the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it self, after it had lothed the use of the good things which it had received, and the aids of his own happiness, waxing of such account with it, bent his impotent greediness, unto the experience of disobedience, drank the poison of all vices, and drouned the whole nature of man with the drunkenness of his intemperance Thence it cometh, that before the eating of the same flesh of the son of man and drinking his blood, he digest that deadly surset, he faileth in memory, erreth in judgment, wauereth in going, neither is he by any means meet to choose and desire that good thing, whereof he depryued himself of his own accord. This eating and drinking cannot be understood of eating and drinking the Sacrament, for the will of man must be prepared both to choose and desire that good, from which man is fallen, before ever he be admitted to the Lord's table, as every Papist will confess. What impudency then is it, upon shadow of some allusion, to draw the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning? But Sander seeing the shameful absurdity that followeth of this his imagined real eatinge of Christ's flesh, to satisfy for the real eating of Adams apple, for so he calleth it, saith it is no more needful that every mā should eat the body of Christ in his own person, then that everyone should eat of the apple to make them guilty, but it is absolutely needful (saith he) that some • r other eat it as really, as ever the apple was eaten, that all the rest, who by baptism enter into the same body, may be one perfectly with Christ, whiles they are one mystically with thē, who really eat the substance of Christ's flesh, being the substance of our true sacrifice, truly roasted upon the cross. This shift of descant, then will not serve the fathers of the old testament, which were not baptized verily as the Papists hold, but in figure only. Secondly if any such real eating were necessary, it were not to be fulfilled by any, but by our savior Christ: for whatsoever the transgression of Adam was, who being but one, made all guilty of damnation, that was to be satisfied by the justification of one man, which was Christ, sufficient for all men unto justification of life, Rom. 5. ver. 18. Last of all I pray you mark Sander his phrase of speech: The flesh of Christ was truly roasted upon the cross. To omit the gross figure of roasting., and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described: Mark that he saith, it was truly roasted upon the cross, and yet I dare say, he meaneth not that the cross was a very spitt, nor yet burning with fire to scorche it. But when we affirm that Christ is truly eaten, he can by no means allow our saying, except we should mean as he doth, that Christ is putt in at our mouths, and if not chewed with our teeth, which some of them hold, yet swallowed down our throat, and so received into our bodies, to nourish them. But if he say well that Christ's flesh was truly roasted vpō the cross, because his body being broken on the cross, was made meat for us, although it were not roasted with fire, &c. then may we rightly say, that Christ's body and blood is truly eaten and drunken of us by faith, although it be not put in at our mouths, nor swallowed down our throats, &c. He saith •• was truly roasted on the cross, and truly rising from death, to th • intent it might be truly eaten of us. &c. As truly as his flesh was roasted, so truly is it eaten: but we acknowledge no cooklike roasting, but a mystical preparation: even so we believe no eating with champing, chawing, & swallowing, but a mystical and spiritual feeding and nourishing, of which we are assured by the visible seals of bread and wine, which we eat and drink bodily. After this, he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Cathe • . to prove that it is necessary, as y ^e poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect us with original sin, so, that the body of Christ be received into our body, as really by our mouths, as ever the apple came in the mouth of Adam. That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter, where such a matter is spoken of, it may be, the copy he saw, had no division of Chapiters: but rather I fear he suppressed it of fraud, because that Chapiter is confessed even by Sonnius a Papist, not to be found in many copies of that Catheticall book of Gregory: and in deed the argument of that part of y ^e oration which goeth before, and of that which followeth after, being of regeneration in baptism, which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper, showeth that it is foisted in by some late writer, which would have the new doctrine of transubstantiation to be credited under color of the authority of this ancient father. For if Gregory had ben purposed to have spoken of y ^e Lord's supper in this book of instruction, which he did write for to show the order and doctrine of Catechizing, he would first have finished his treaty of baptism and regeneration, and afterward have descended to the other parte of God's dispensation, which consisteth in preserving and feeding his children that are borne unto him, which grace is represented in the Lord's supper. I pass over y ^t Nicephorus testifieth, even y ^t book in his time to have been corrupted by diverse heretics & Origenists by name, which corruption and diversity of copies gave some transubstantiator good hope, that his addition in such variety of books might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authority of Gregory. And he was nothing deceived. For M. Sander, whether he think it to be such, or only would have us to acknowledge it for such, dissembling the vn certainty thereof, which other papists confess; setteth it forth, as the sound and undoubted authority of Gregory Nyssene. As for his vain cavilling, that the figure of a medicine healeth not, is foolish and absurd: for so he might reason, that baptism is no medicine for original sin, but a figure of a medicine. We make not the sacraments figures of medicins, but outward signs of inward and spiritual healing. The virtue of cleansing sins, is not included in the water, no more then the spiritual feeding is in y ^e bread and wine. And more absurd it is, that he chargeth us with shadows in the sacraments. And where he saith, that all spiritual gifts are inferior to y ^e flesh of Christ being in our mouth: if he mean inferior in utility, it is false: for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh, which he imagineth in our mouths, y ^e Papists confess, that we may be saved, but with that flesh in our mouths, by their own doctrine, we may be damned.

From this place he beginneth to rave against Calvin, although he have appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error. Calvin's supper he saith, in respect of Christ's real substance, is but a mere savor of sweet meats. As though Calvin did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them, y ^t worthily receive the sacraments. Beside this he chargeth Calvin, as one y ^t setteth forth the kingdom of the devil, & abaseth the kingdom & gifts of God. Because he hath diligently & eloquently set forth y ^e doctrine of man's fall & damnation, but in y ^e doctrine of salvation & renovation by Christ, he hath dealt faintly & weakly. God be thanked, they which will read Calvin of this point, w ^t indifferent judgment, will confess, y ^t he hath shown no less diligence & eloquence therein, then in the other. And wherefor hath he set forth y ^• one, but for the glory of the other? And even by those things which be not slanders in Sand, by which he saith he hath abased y ^e kingdō & gift of God, he hath greatly magnified the glory thereof: which is, that all power, virtue, help, comfort, grace, & gifts, come only from God by the only means of Jesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christ's little flock is contemptous in the eyes of the world, that many are called and few are chosen, that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatory, no popish priesthood, no one shepherd on earth, but only the death, eternal priesthood, and great sheephearde Jesus Christ. As for the cold supper, small offering of sufficient grace, baptism like a sheepemarke, no authority to make laws, no communion of Saints, no real joining and uniting with Christ's flesh and blood in the holy mysteries, &c. be Sanders lies, and slanders; not Calvin's assertions. After he hath railed a crash at Calvin, unto whose felicity this may be added, that he is slandered by so evil a person, as Sander is, he repeteth the diverse suppers of Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, joining to them also the fantastical opinion of that epicurian gospeller, Carolastadius, and disseuering Calvin from Zwinglius, with whom he agreeth fully. And Calvin's supper he saith, were good for Angels, to feed upon immortal meat in their souls, but Christ hath given his body and blood to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feed on. Verily, even as he hath given the holy ghost to wash us body and soul from all our sins, and to regenerate us to be the sons of God: Sander might say, if he would, this were a regeneration, or birth, good for Angels, that have no bodies. For he will not understand, that both body and soul may be nourished by spiritual food, as well as both body & soul borne a new by a spiritual washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians (saith he) had two faults, both which the heretics do follow. The first fault, they came to it after they had eaten their own supper, so the heretics first devise what supper they will allow Christ, and then they come to it, conforming it to their devise. In deed so do the Papists. The second fault was, they did eat and drink alone without making their meat common to the poor: so the heretics eat and drink alone, teaching, that every man eateth Christ only by measure of his own faith. Nay rather the Popish heretics eat and drink all alone often times, not tarrying for other to communicate with them, and always they drink all alone, giving no parte to them that would drink with them, which is worse then the Corinthians did: for they eat not their supper alone, which teach that Christ must be eaten of the whole Church together, requiring faith in every man that shall receive the Sacrament worthily. But Sander maketh Christ so liberal, that he giveth himself to all that sit at the table, riche or poor, good or bad. In deed, he offereth himself to all, but he giveth himself to none, but to such as receive him thankfully, and which take profit by him: wherefore he saith, He that eateth me, shall live for me, whereupon it followeth invincibly, that he which liveth not for him, eateth him not. Neither saith Jerome anything contrary to this, where he saith, that Christ hath given his body to be eaten, himself being the meat and the feaster or guest. True it is, that Christ alone in his death, was the priest, the Sacrifice, and the temple, or altar, not playing all partes, as Sander lewdly speaketh, but performing thoroughly in his own person, whatsoever was necessary for our full and perfect redemption, the seal and assurance whereof, with all benefits thereto belonging, he giveth us in his holy supper, and not bare odors of spiritual grace, but a true communicating of his body and blood unto everlasting life, of as many as with a true and lively faith receive it spiritually, as their bodies receive the outward elements of bread and wine bodily. Like as in baptism we receive not bare odors of spiritual grace, but are verily borne a new, and engraffed into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, after a divine and heavenly manner with forgiveness of our sins, even as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water. Wherefore, that which we teache of the receiving of the body and blood of Christ by faith, is no denying of the Lord's supper, but a clear exposition and setting forth of the same, according to the holy scriptures, and the institution of our Savior Christ himself.

CAP. VI.

A special error of Calvin is confuted, who taught, This is my body, which is given for you, to be words of promise, in the way of preaching at Christ's supper, whereas they are words of performance in the way of working.

The long babbling, quarreling, and wrangling, that he useth in this large Chapter, is grounded upon one poor sophistication of Sander, in disioyning those things, that are to be conjoined & matched together. Namely, where Calvin saith, the saying of Christ to be words of promise: Sander presseth him to say, they be words of promise only, where he saith expressly, that they are also words of performance, as Sander himself translateth his words: They are a lively preaching, which may show his efficacy in accomplishment of that it promiseth. Is not efficacy in accomplishment, which is all one with performance, here joined with promise? To omit therefore his railing against Calvin, for singularity, & against y ^e preachers of England, for following his fancy, &c. let us see, what mater he hath to bring against Calvin's saying, y ^t those words are words of promise. First he confesseth, y ^t they are words of promise, fulfilling a promise made before, at Capernaū. Also they are words of promise, in respect of the death of Christ, which is promised in these words which is givē for you, or, shall be givē for you, &c. but this saying. This is my body, is no more words of promise, then the saying: This is my well-beloved son, which are words of witness, of a thing present. Then he will teache the difference between a promise and a performance: a promise (saith he) beginneth the bargain, the performance endeth it. Let it be so, that should prove the words of Christ to be a promise, whereof the performance followeth upon the conditions required.

In the institution of the supper, there is mention of a new covenant. In every covenant there must be two parties at the least. Christ is one party, but who is the other party, will Master Sander say? Every man, or every faithful man only? The new testament is a covenant of forgiveness of sins, but forgiveness of sins is not obtained of all men, but only of them that believe: therefore not all men, but only the faithful are the other party in this covenant. Wherefore, though the promise of eating of Christ's body, even as of forgiveness of sins, is offered by Christ generally to all men, yet the performance is only unto the faithful, which are the other party of the covenant. Whereof it followeth, that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ, and so the words of Christ are words of promise, the performance whereof was in them that did receive faithfully, that which he offered. But the words of Christ (saith he) speak not of the time to come, but of the present time, ergo no promise. A sorry reason, by which he might prove, a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures, to be no words of promise, because they are spoken, not only in the present time, but also in the time past. And yet the words of Christ must have relation unto the time to come. For Christ did not consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood, but with purpose, that they should be eaten and drunken. And therefore he biddeth them first eat & drink, and then saith, This is my body, this is my blood, that is to say, In eating and drinking this bread and this cup, you shall eat and drink my body and blood: Therefore, in these words, This is my body: the covenant is not ended, as Sander saith, until that which is offered on the one party, be accepted on the other party. Where he affirmeth, that words of promise, consist in bare talk, he giveth a bare judgment of the promises of God, which are effectual in work, although they be uttered in words. And when he saith, they have no condition, or delaye annexed, it is untrue, although it be not necessary, that every promise should have a condition, for many promises are made absolutely. But God's promises require the condition of faith, in them that shall obtain the performance of them, and so doeth this. And therefore the promise of spiritual communicating, (which Sander objecteth) helpeth not Judas, because he receiveth it not with faith. Sander asketh Calvin, whether the condition of faith, be written in the supper or no: If not, how dare Calvin supply it? Hath he not choked Calvin with this question, trow you? But if Calvin can find a covenant in the supper, he will not seek far off, to find faith, necessarily required in the receivers thereof. But he hath two other reasons against y ^e promise, one of the word, This; another of the word, Is. This (saith he) showeth where the thing is, that it pointeth unto. The body of Christ is promised, & also pointed unto. If the word, This, be such a pointer, I pray you syr, where is that which is pointed unto, when he saith of the cup: This is the new testament in my blood? Was that which seemed the cup, or that in the cup the new testament, which was pointed unto? If it were a sacrament or seal of the new testament, confirmed in his blood which was shed for us, then was the other a Sacrament or seal of the new testament, confirmed in the breaking and giving of his body for us. It angreth Sander, that Calvin should: say Christ saying, This is my body, speaketh not to the bread, but to his disciples, wherein he would make him so singular, that not only the Papists, but also all Lutherans & Zwinglians, do confess the words to be spoken to the bread, which is a shameful lie, both of the Lutherans & of the Zwinglians, for none of them is so mad, to think that when he began to speak to his disciples, and say: Take and eat, then he turned his tale from them, and spake to the bread, when he said: This is my body, & then again to his disciples, when he said, which is given for you: For, if he had spoken to the bread, he would have said, thou art my body, and not, this is my body, which is of the third person. And to put all out of doubt, S. Mark saith, speaking of the cup, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and he said unto them, This is my blood. If he spake not to the wine, but to his disciples, when he said, this is my blood, then surely he spake not to the bread, but to his disciples, of the bread: when he said, This is my body. Mark this well, for although it be but a small matter, yet it overthroweth the whole mystery of Popish Consecration. The argument of this verb, est, is, taketh for proof, that which is in controversy, namely, that it is put properly, because it is indeed Christ's body, when the words are spoken. But seeing by your own divinity, it is not the body of Christ, before the last syllable, vm, be pronounced, howe could the Verbe est, be taken properly: when neither before it was spoken, nor while it was in speaking, the body of Christ was made of bread? But Sander will know, by what Scriptures, Calvin proveth his lewd interpretation: As though Calvin affirmeth anything, of this matter, which he proveth not plentifully by the scriptures, which are of the nature of Sacraments generally: and of this Sacrament especially, of the nature of the humanity of Christ, & of many tropical speeches, used throughout the scriptures, which he that will, may read at large in his writings. In the mean time, let us see, how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God.

The first argument of confutation, is gathered of y ^e present tēps, used in these words: This is my body, which agreeth not with the nature of a promise, which is a prediction of a thing to come. I have before answered this lewd argument: for all promises are not uttered in y ^e future temps: Isaiah saith, Puer natus est nobis, a child is born unto us, when he was not borne, 500. years after. I have shown before, that the words, This is my body, have relatiō to y ^e eating which followed after they were uttered. Calvin saith further, y ^t Christ speaketh not to y ^e bread, that it should be made his body: But he commandeth his disciples to eat, & promiseth them y ^e communicating of his body & blood. Against this, Sander replieth, y ^t God said to his disciples, take, eat, which is a commandment, and no promise: He saith further, This is my body, that is, y ^e making of the meat, which must be eaten, & the showing of it, but no promise. S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is it not the communicating of the body of Christ? Who dare say the contrary? But is the bread which we break, an actual communicating of the body of Christ, before we eat it? No verily. Howe is then the bread that we break, a communicating of the body of Christ, before we eat it, but by promise of communicating to them, that shall eat it faithfully? And if these words, This is my body, be not words of promise, of communicating his body, what other words of promise, can Sander show in the institution? But now will Sander prove at large, that Christ spake not to his disciples, when he said, This is my body: but to the bread. Although I have already proved, out of the words of S. Mark, that Christ spake to his disciples, so plainly, that Sanders ears may gloe on his head for shame, to read it: yet will I consider all his particular arguments, by which he taketh upon him to prove, that Christ spake to the bread.

The first reason, Christ speaketh sometimes to insensible creatures: as to the winds, y ^e fig tree, and all creatures here y ^e voice of God, whē he speaketh to thē, so he speaketh here, to the bread. If this consequent, did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity, I would grant it; otherwise I must deny it. Well, yet thus much is gained, that it is not absurd, that Christ should speak to the bread, being a senseless creature. yes very absurd, that beginning to speak to men, he should suddenly make an apostrophe to bread, and without any transition, but even with a relative, as sodenlie return to speak to men. And y ^t speaking to bread, he should use no word of y ^e second persō, which he useth, in speaking to the Winds, & to the Fig tree.

The second reason beginneth thus: Calvin saith, Christ spake not to the bread I tell him, he spake to the bread, not as to a thing which should carry bread, but as to that which should be changed into his body: For he called the bread his body. Is not this a magistrall, or doctorall kind of reasoning? I tell him (quoth Sander) it is so: but how proveth he y ^t Christ spake to the bread, because he called it his body? Which if Calvin will deny, he hath it ready out of Tertullian, aduer. Marc. lib. 4. Panem corpus suum appellate: He calleth the bread his body. But we cannot call a thing, except we speak unto it. Therefore when Christ called the bread his body, he spake unto the bread, as if he had said unto the bread, be thou my body. Who would have thought it? Sander cannot call a stone, a stone, but he speaketh to a stone: nor a shouell, a shouell, but he speaketh to a shouell. And with Sander, it is all one, to say: This is a shouell, or a stone, and be thou a shouell, or a stone. Nay, he will say, with God, calling and making is all one, where he will make one thing of another. In deed that is another matter. If this will of God could be proved, of the bread to make his natural body, calling and making might be one, and yet it would not follow, that Christ intending to turn bread into his natural body, by these words: This is my body, could not do it, except he spake to the bread.

But now let us see, howe he proveth, that Christ made the bread, his natural body. First, Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst. init. Cap. 9. Ante been dictionem &c. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind, after consecration, the body is signified. He himself nameth it his blood. Before consecration, it is named another thing, after consecration it is called blood. And thou sayest, Amen: that is, it is true. That which the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confess. That which the speech soundeth, let the affection feel. Out of these words, Sander saith, that it is evident, that Christ spake to the bread and wine; but by what reason, I cannot devise: and that the making of them, is in deed so as they are called and signified, because the people answered, Amen. I grant the bread and wine, are made sacraments, to signify the body and blood of Christ, and that is it, which the people confess, if Ambrose expound the words of Christ truly, when he saith, that the body of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called bread and wine before the words of blessing, and afterward is called the body and blood of Christ. This 1. witness speaketh not so much against him, but Tertullian, his second witness speaketh much more. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. He made the bread which was taken, and distributed to the disciples, his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body. Loe he made the bread his body. We confess, but howe his body? That is to say, a figure of his body: but being a figure stoppeth not the real truth of his body (saith he): no more then Christ, being a figure, printe or form, of his fathers substance, which is yet also his substance in deed. What sayest thou, Sabellian heretic? Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis, from his father, because he is Homousion of the same substance, and is not that proved, because he is Character substantiae patris? And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the divinity, with the figures of Christ. Yea saith Sander, There can be no more gross, more vile, more blasphemous opinion, then to think that Christ is a bare man: &c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the old Law. And again, look what odds is between God and man, so much believe thou to be between his naming, or his figures of the new Testament, and all other figures. Why Sander, were the namings in the Old Testament of man, and not of GOD? Were the figures instituted of man, and not of God? Yea, were they not instituted of Christ himself? If they were instituted of God, howe followeth thy beastly conclusion, of the difference, or odds of figures, and naming of the new Testament, and figures, and namings of the old Testament? The rock was Christ, it was a figure and naming of the old Testament, so named and instituted by Christ himself, why should there be more transubstantiation of the bread, then of the rock? except as thou wast even now a Sabellian, so in this thou art a Marcionite, that believest another GOD, and Christ of the new Testament, then was of the Old Testament.

Augustine, speaking of the figures of the Old Testament, and comparing them with the figures of the new Testament, saith,

Sacramenta illa fuerunt, in signis diuersa sunt, in re quae significatur paria sunt. Those were sacraments, they are diverse in signs, but in the thing which is signified, they are equal.

in John. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer, and beside this, examining Tertullian, let us ask him, what did Christ distribute to his disciples? He will answer panem, bread. Again, howe made he the bread his body? he answereth, he made it a figure of his body. Yea saith Sander, the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's body: because it showeth his death until he come.

But what is the sacrament with you Papists? The natural body of Christ. Then the natural body of Christ, is a figure of the body of Christ: if this be not shameless trifling, I report me to you. Tertullian is a good expounder to interpret the name of Corpus, by figura Corporis, if Corpus be taken properly. But to proceed. The next reason to prove that Christ spake to the bread, is this: The Sacrament is a sacrifice, y ^e act which offereth it, and voweth it, pertaineth as well to the thing offered, as unto God, to whom it is offered: as when a Lamb is offered, God in the Lamb is honored, prayed unto, blessed, thanked, and praised. I omit these strange phrases: God is prayed to, in a Lamb. &c. But speak plainly Sander, if thou darest: is the Lamb spoken unto, when it is said, This is the Passover: This is the blood of the covenant, which God hath made with you? For thou must not think, to reason with men in such sort, as boys would not suffer thee to pass. The act of sacrificing pertaineth to the thing offered: therefore the thing offered is spoken unto. But howe prouest thou, that this Sacrament is a sacrifice? Because, it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice, made by his death upon the cross, It must also needs partake that nature, whereof it is a remembrance: and consequently, it must be certainly believed, to be a true sacrifice, as that of the cross was. Who will grant, or how canst thou prove, the major of this argument, Every remembrance must partake the nature of that, whereof it is a remembrance? Is the remembrance of a man, a man? or the remembrance of God, God? or to pose thee in thine own popery, is the memory of a Mass, as you call it, a Mass? But that reason cannot prove, authority shall enforce. First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Heresies saith, that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei, the eucharistie of the body & blood of Christ is made. The bread (saith Sander) cannot take the word, which is not directed to it. Yes, as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God, spoken by God to men, and by prayer directed to God by men, and not to y ^e creatures y ^t are eaten & drunken. The same Irenaeus, is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying,

Panis percipiens vocationem dei, bread receiving the calling of God, is not now common bread, but the eucharistie consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly.

If vocation be not here taken for invocation, or calling upon God, as it is most like, yet at least, it is taken for the virtue of God's word, which it may receive, although the word be directed to men, and not to bread. But the earthly thing whereof the sacrament consisteth, (saith Sander) is the old form of bread, as though accidents without the subject and substance of earth, be earthly. Secondly the heavenly thing is the body of Christ: this is true, if he meant as Irenaeus meaneth, the body of Christ, the divine virtue and efficacy of Christ's body sacrificed, for our redemption. But as he understandeth it, for the natural body of Christ: like as it is monstrous to affirm that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter: so is it heretical and anabaptisticall, to say, that the natural body of Christ is an heavenly matter or substance.

The second authority is, Justinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis, &c. We have learned that the food which is consecrated by the word of prayer, which we took of him, to be the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. He yieldeth the words of Justinus, who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the word, Food, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which food our blood, and flesh by transmutation, are nourished: which confuteth transubstantiation, and carnal eating. But to the matter in question. This word of prayer (saith Sander) can be none other, but, This is my body: as though Christ hath not taught us to frame our prayers, but by that saying. But see the conclusion that will follow, admitting these words, This is my body, to be words of prayer: Then are they not words of performance: for prayer and performance differ as much as promise, and performance. Again, when Sander saith, they are not words of preaching, because they are words of prayer: for preaching is directed principally to the people, and prayer only to GOD. Mark the conclusion. If they be words of prayer, and words of prayer be directed only to God: then are they not directed to the bread.

The like may be gathered of that he saith, that they be words of sacrifice, which were Idolatry, to direct to any but to God: and therefore chargeth Calvin with horrible Idolatry, for directing them to the people, not remembering that it is as great Idolatry, to direct them to the bread, if they were words of sacrifice. But they are directed finally to GOD (saith he) as though words of preaching, were not finally directed to GOD: and by the way of sacrificing, they appertain to the bread, as though words of sacrificing appertain not to the people, for whom the sacrifice is offered, as much and more, then to the thing that is sacrificed. For what is a sacrifice of an Ox, or a Calf (of which he taketh similitudes) but a figurative preaching? Hath any man so great leisure to confute such insensible arguments?

But Jerome ad Euag. tom. 2. saith, that at the prayers of Priests, the body and blood of Christ is made. Doubtless at none other prayers (saith Sander) then wherein they say, with mind of sacrificing over bread, This is my body: &c. seeing his argument is nothing else, but doubtless, we may not doubt upon it. A strange prayer, wherein nothing is asked, and he that prayeth, speaketh not in his own person, but in the person of another. But August. saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised, hath taken away y ^e promising words, I will give, is a word of promise; I have given, is a word of performance. The Evangelists testify, y ^t Christ hath given, therefore his words are not words of promise. I answer, The Evangelists testify, that Christ gave bread, which he brake, and gave unto his disciples, promising the communicating of his body, to them that did eat it faithfully, in saying, this is my body which is broken for you: the condition of faithful receiving, required in all God's couenantes, must needs be included in this, although in every place where mention thereof is made, it be not expressed.

From this matter, he returneth to the former talk of sacrifice. These words (saith he) fulfill the act of sacrifice, and therefore they are called of Justinus Martyr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word of prayer, or vow. It is false that he saith that Justin calleth these words, This is my body, words of prayer, or vow: for he saith, the food to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that for which thanks is given by word of prayer: yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur, &c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God, specially the oblation of the holy altar. And again, Orationes. &c. We take prayers to be said, when that which is on the Lord's table, is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed. This blessing and sanctifiing (saith Sander) is made by prayer, that prayer is vowing to God of bread and wine: let all this be granted, what followeth? The word of vowing, is to say over it, This is my body. That is the matter in controversy, which with Sander, is always a good argument, but yet remaineth to be proved. But now we must see y ^e difference between Calvin & the old fathers. Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation. Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ having taken bread and given thanks, said. This is my body, and confessed the chalice to be his blood, and taught a new oblation of the new testament, which also he proveth out of Malachi the Prophet. Calvin will have no working upon the bread, but only in the minds of the hearers, and neither prayer, nor vow, nor sacrifice, in these words. Neither hath Sander proved, that in these words, is either prayer, vow, or sacrifice. Nevertheless, Calvin acknowledgeth, the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers under stood, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of atonement for sins. For thus writeth Irenaeus:

Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum, &c. He taught the oblation of the new testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offereth to God through out the whole world, even to him which giveth food unto us, the first fruits of his gifts.

Here is no oblation of the body and blood of Christ, but thanksgiving unto God for his benifites. And what the sacrifice foreshowed by Malachi was, he expoundeth out of S. John, in the Apocalypse, the prayers of the saints. Cap. 35. Also Cap. 34. expounding what is that pure sacrifice foreshowed by Malachi, and taught by Christ, he saith:

Oportet enim nos oblationem deo facere, & in omnibus gratos inueniri fabricatori deo, in sententia pura, & fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilection feruenti, primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturarum offerentes: & hanc oblationem Ecclesia solapuram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum action ex creatura eius. For we must make this oblation to God, and in all things be found thankful to God our maker in a pure mind, and faith without hypocrisy, in steadfast hope and fervent love, offering the first fruits of those creatures which are his: and this pure oblation, the Church a lone offereth to her maker, offering to him of his own creature, with thanksgiving.

Thus writeth Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Church, which cannot stand with the Popish sacrifice, of Christ's natural body and blood.

And whatsoever Gregory Nyss. Chrysostom, or Ambrose write, of changing the bread, consecrating of the things set forth, working of Christ's words, hath none other meaning, but of the spiritual changing, consecrating, and working of God, in the worthy receivers of this sacrament, as in more proper places, shall be shown out of everyone of them.

The next argument to prove that Christ spake to the bread, is of the custom of the East Church, in which, the people answered Amen, when the words of consecration were pronounced alowde, which he proveth out of Ambrose. The same appeareth in Augustine sermon ad insants, which proveth, that it was the custom of the Latin Church in those days, to pronounce the words openlv: for Ambrose and Augustine were both of the West or Latin Church, and therefore the fecret whispering of the Popish Church, is proved to be but new, in comparison, belike invented since transubstantiation came to town, and therefore that custom proveth nothing worth the answering, howsoever Sander prefer it before the custom of the elder Church. To the which I answer, that Amen may be said, as well to words of promise, and more properly, then to words of performance. For Amen, doth not only affirm a thing to be so, but also wisheth that it may be so.

But now, there is another ancient custom, witnessed by Irenaeus out of Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. who reproving Victor bishop of Rome, for excōmenicating the Churches of Asia, dissenting from him in the celebration of Easter, affirmeth that Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, used solemnly to send the Eucharisty to those priests, who came out of those quarters, where Easter was kept otherwise then it was it Rome. Ergo (saith he) the sacrament is a corporal real thing, which may be preserved, carried, sent up and down, and so at last received. And so consequently, the words in question, are words of performance, and not of promise. Although the consequence is not sure, yet the foundation of this whole argument is naught. For Irenaeus saith not, that the Sacrament was preserved, carried, sent up and down, but that it was sent solemnly unto strangers, not into foreign countries, but to such as came to Rome, neither doeth he say, that it was sent unto their lodginges or Inns, but for anything that he saith, it was sent unto them, being present at the time of distribution and celebration of the supper: for he saith before:

Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclcsiae societate, aut venientes ab illis paribus non sunt suscepti. Yet were they never for this repulsed from the society of the Church, or coming from those partes, were not received.

And afterward he showeth, that Anicetus did give place unto Polycarpus, permitting him to minister the Communion, as one whom he honored. So that no reservation, nor sending up and down, is hereof proved, other then sending the communion by the Deacons, about the Church, as their custom was. But Justinus saith expressly, that it was sent unto them which were absent, by the Deacons, which had no power to consecrate, and therefore Calvin reproveth that custom for an abuse.

But for as much as Justinus maketh mention before of the collation of alms, which was also blessed, and that he affirmeth, that the Deacous carried it, is not unlike, but that this carriage might be of bread and wine, which was then offered in great quantity, to the relief of such poor, as being letted by sickness or imprisonment, could not be present, at the holy assemblies. Or if you will needs understand, that which was sent to be the sacrament, although the Deacons might not consecrate, yet might they declare the virtue and force of the consecration, and the use of the Sacrament, unto such as they did carry it, from the congregation, with which, those that upon necessary cause were absent, were present in spirit, & might communicate more tolerably, then they which among y ^e Papists, when thei have no let, refuse to communicate w ^t the priest, and after in sickness receive their mass cake, communicating with none at all. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied, but such carrying of the sacrament, if it were used in the eldest Church, was an abuse, because it hath none allowance in the holy Scriptures of Christ's institution, but a commandment to the contrary: for these words, Take and eat, be words of commanding: therefore keeping and sending, which are contrary to these, cannot be defended, howsoever they might be excused. Wherefore, it is without reason, that Calvin is charged with intolerable pride, for finding fault with the primitive Church, and bringing no reason of his reproving. For Calvin opposeth the commandment of Christ, the end of the institution, which he worthily calleth the truth, against any custom, of any man, how good soever he were. Cyprian saith, we must not regard what any man hath done before us, but what Christ, which is before all, hath done and commanded to be done. lib. 2 Ep. 3. The custom of ministering with water, was ancient, and used in the primitive Church, by some (as it should seem by Cyprian) otherwise godly men. But he concludeth against it,

Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem; Neither must we follow the custom of man, but the truth of God.

It is therefore a fault, to keep the sacramental bread and wine, or to send it about, because Christ hath neither done nor commanded it to be done, but the contrary, to be eaten and drunken. This reason of Cyprian is Calvin's reason, of whose writings, Sander willeth all men to take heed: and yet he saith, they shall find in them neither learning nor honesty. If there be no learning in them, there is no great danger of hurt by reading of them. I marvel, what that is, which you Papists call learning: for if it be knowledge of sciences, of tongues, of ancient writings, of things past, of things present, weight in reasoning, eloquence in uttering, power in reproving, or whatsoever was in old time accounted for learning, I trust all indifferent men will confess, that great steppes thereof may be found in Calvin's writing. But if learning be nothing else with Papists, but that which they fantasie thenselves to know, there is none learned but Papists. Whereas Sander threateneth upon the defense of Calvin's supposed error, taken in hand by any of his scholars, to discover more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master, if he can have so much leisure from his traitorous practices in Ireland, which he hath lately taken in hand, under the service of his devilish blasphemous & antichristian master, the Pope, I wish him not to spare: not doubting, but as I have so discovered his proud, and yet blockish ignorance, in this Chapter, in such sort as his friends will blush to read it, although he be past shame himself: so in any matter, wherein the Church of England doth consent with Calvin's writing, I shall be able by God's help, so to defend the truth, that all his much babbling, trifling, quarrelling, controlling, lying, railing, shall turn to his own confusion, and the reproach of the Baby lonicall strompet, which he laboreth, both with pen and sword, tongue and hand, both like an heretic & a traitor, to protest and maintain against the church of God.

The second book.

CAP. 1.

The Catholics require their cause to be uprightly tried by the holy scriptures, which they have always studied & reverenced.

T His request is reasonable, if it were faithfully meant, but it is nothing but an heretical brag, because you seem to have color in the holy scriptures, for your carnal, and as you call it, real presence, otherwise, what study soever you have followed in your closets, your open writings declare small reverence unto the holy Scriptures. For Pighius one of them, whom you name to have convinced these heresies in our days, by holy scripture, calleth the holy Scripture a nose of wax, and a dumb Judge. These I ween be words of small reverence. Eckius, another of them, calleth the Scripture, a black Gospel, and an inkish divinity. And Hosius, a third man saith, these words of our Savior Christ, Drink ye all of this, if they be understood generally, as well of lay men as of Priests, to be the express words of the devil, and that there is no word in all the Scripture of power to save, but one only word, Dilige.

And generally, all Papists, which before our time, and in our days, have taken upon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures, submitting the understanding of them to the Popes determination, declare, that they reverence them not as the holy word of God, but esteem them as a leaden rule, which they may draw to anything that shall please them. The absuide and lewd interpretations of many of the Popes, and other their applesquires, whereof the subtiler Papists in these days, are ashamed, would fill a large volume, if I should go about to rehearse them. The best excuse that Harding can find for many of them, is that they are spiritual daliance (in the devils name) by which you may see, what reverence they bear to the holy scriptures, that make them an argument of daliance.

CAP. II.

It is proved by the word of God, that evil men receive the both of Christ in his supper.

The Apology against which Sander fighteth, professeth, That in the supper (unto such as believe) there is truly giu en the body and blood of the Lord. Sander replieth, that Judas received the body of Christ, ergo not only they that believe. Concerning Judas, it is a question, whether he received the Sacrament or no. Not only because, as Sander confesseth, that some ancient fathers thought that he went out before the supper, namely, Hilarius

in Math, Can. 30. Post que Judas pr • dit • y iudicaur, sine quo Pascha accepto calice & fracto pane conficitur. After which things Judas is declared to be a traitor, without whom the Passover is made, the cup being taken, and the bread being broken:

But also by consequence of Sanders own confession in lib. 1, Cap. 4. fol. 18. where he affirmeth, that Christ did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschal Lamb, washed his disciples feet, and then sat down again to supper. But S. John testifieth, that Judas departed immediately after the soppe received, which was before supper was ended. For this soppe could not be the sacrament, (as Augustine thinketh) seeing the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe, and so was this soppe dipped in the platter, and not in the cup. But to admit that Judas was present, and did receive the Sacrament; howe proveth he, that he received the body of Christ? That which Christ delivered, Judas received: Christ delivered his body, ergo Judas received his body. Neither the major nor the minor of this argument, is out of controversy. For Judas received not whatsoever Christ delivered: for Christ delivered a spiritual communication of his body, as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that would receive it, which Judas received not: therefore the major is false. The minor taketh as granted, that whereof is all the controversy: namely, that Christ delivered his body under the forms of bread, which we deny, affirming that he gave bread into their hands, and his body after a spiritual manner, to them which received it by faith.

The Apology further affirmeth, the Papists to teach the very body of Christ to be eaten substantially, not only of wicked men, but also (which is horrible to speak) of mise and dogs. Sander answereth, that it is not worth the while to discuss, whether mise & dogs, in some sense eat the body of Christ, because the Catholics keep it so warily, y ^t neither mouse nor dog may come nigh it: wherein he controlleth the scholemen, who have long disputations & doctorall determinations of that question. In the end he thinketh it worse, y ^t wicked men should eat, then if dogs or mise should eat it. But in deed they are both blasphemous absurdities. As for the fathers, whom he quoteth, for wicked men's eating of the body of Christ, we shall consider in the next Chapter, which is proper for that title. His next argument is out of S. Paul: whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus: unworthy eating, supposeth an eating. It is very true: but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread, and not eating of this body. Yea, saith Sander, Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread, both with an article and a Pronoun: ergo that bread is the body of Christ. I deny that argument. The article and the Pronoun, show that it is not common bread, but the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. But howe can he which eateth this bread unworthily, be guilty of the body of Christ, which he eateth not? Very well. For he which abuseth the Kings seal, is guilty of y ^e kings Majesty, which he acknowledgeth not. But this argument out of Saint Paul, he referreth unto another time, returning again to Judas. That thing whereof Christ said to the twelve, Take, eat, and drink, was taken, eaten, and drunken of all the twelve, and was but one thing only concerning eating and drinking, that is his body and blood: therefore Judas did eat the same that Peter, James, and John did.

We heard in the last Chapiter of the first book, that it consisted of two things, by y ^e judgment of Irenaeus, an earthly sub stance, and an heavenly, the one all received, the other only the faithful, therefore, the antecedent of this argument is false. But if that argument be not plain enough, we must take another. Judas and John did eat one thing: Eche of them, that food, whereof Christ said, this is my body: but John did truly eat Christ's body: ergo Judas did truly eat Christ's body. I answer, the major is ambiguous, for if one food be taken for one bread, it is true, but if one thing be taken for the body of Christ, it is the matter in controversy, and denied of us. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous. For if ye understand eating of Christ's body truly, eating by faith spiritually, it is true, and as the Apology meaneth: if you understand eating Christ's body carnallie, it is false, and denied of the Apology, that John did so eat the body of Christ. The argument is no better then this: Judas and John, did hear one Gospel each of them, that whereof it is said, that it is the power of God to salvation: But John did hear the Gospel to his salvation: ergo Judas did hear the Gospel to his salvation. But Sander cauelleth, of delivering of bakers bread, and nothing else, but Bakers bread. Christ offereth two things, earthly bread, and his divine body. Now if Judas receive the one, and refuse the other, what folly is it to reason, of Christ's delivering? which is like as if a man will deliver an obligation as his deed, and the party that should receive it, will not receive it, but as a scrolle, and so renteth it in pieces. In deed therefore Christ offereth his body to all men: but they only receive it, which believe. But eating by faith, (saith Sander) is a preparation to worthy eating, but the meat is all one, even as the baptism is all one, to the wicked and to the godly. I will ask no better example, then of the Sacrament of Baptism, where indeed, the water, which is the outward element, is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed, as the bread is to all that eat: but regeneration, the thing signified by the water, is proper only to the elect of GOD: Even so the body of Christ, which is the thing signified by the bread, is not received but of them, which believe unto eternal life.

CAP. III.

The ancient fathers teach, that evil men receive truly the body of Christ.