Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 9 · Section 4 – Section 5
4 About the marriage of Votaries.Bristowe
The two places one of Epiphanius, the other of Hieronyme, whiche I cited for the Marriage of Votaries, Fulke.Bristo we sayeth are about a matter, which they holde euen as those fathers did. But in deede they holde the contrary, for they helde the marriage of such lawfull, the Papistes dissolue them, and say they are no marriages. It is better saith Epiphanius, to hauehave one sinne, and not many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course, opēnly to take a wife according to the lawe, and of long time to repent from his virginitie, and so to be brought againe to the Church, as one that hath done amisse, as one that is fallen and broken & hauing neede to be bounde, rather then to be wounded daily with priuie dartes, of that wickednesse, which the deuil putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preache, these are the medicines of healing. Bristowe saith, I gather that marriage is an wholsome medicine for such men. Contrarie to that I confesse my selfe, that he calleth it a sinne.
But he slaundereth me as he doeth often: I saide Epiphanius doth count it an offence to marry, because it was a breache of vowe, but neither he, nor I, saide that mar…i…ge is a sinne Bristowe saith likewise, the Apostles tradition calleth it a sinne. But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof euen as he did me. The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt, &c. The holy Apostles of God hauehave deliuered, yt it is a sin after virginity decreed, to be turned to marriage. They say not marriage is a sinne, but by breache of vowe to marrie is a sinne. For their sinn cannot pollute the ordinance of God. But the wholsome medicines are penance & reconciliation, saith Bristowe. And why not marriage I pray you? whatsoeuer is good for the diseased, is an wholsom medicine: to take a wife openly, is good for the diseased: therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine. As for your distinction of solemne vowe, and sole vow is a very bable: Epiphanius speaketh generally of al that had vowed virginity.
To the place of Hierome Ad Demetriadem, he answereth that they which of two sinnes will needes committ one, they counsell them to committ the lesse rather then the greater. But Hierom maketh no comparison of sinnes, but saith to such virgins as liued incontinently. It must be plainly saide to them, that either they should marry if they cannot containe, or else they should containe if they will not marry.
5. About the reall presence and transubstantiation.Bristowe.
About these pointes I will not stande, considering I Fulke.hauehave written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders, and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books concerning these places.
Where I saide, it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. yt the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body, or whether Christ hauehave any more bodies. It were an easy matter to shewe that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church, but I pardon Bristowes ignorance: and answere him, that the sacrament is neither his naturall, nor his mysticall body in proper speeche, But secundum quendam modum, as Aug. saith, after a certain manner, both, And I read in Theodoret of a third body, which the sacrament is, De typico symbolico que corpore, a typicall or sacramentall body.
The place of Augustine in Psalm. 58. with the cauillation of Adoration, which Bristowe maketh, is examined in mine answere to Heskins. Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander. Lib. 6. Cap. 2.
The place of Augustine, which I translated worde for worde, and faithfully gaue the sense thereof, as euerie man may see that readeth it, Purg. 309. Bristowe shamefully peruerteth, setting the carte before the horse, in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense. But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate, Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare, against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation, speaking of signes, & namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament: Sed quia haec, &c. But because these thinges are knowen to men, because they are done by men, they may hauehave honour, as religious things, but wonder as miracles, they cannot hauehave. Whereof if he had known the carnal presence, & change of the bread, such as the papistes speake of, he must needes hauehave acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature, which they are constrained to faine, although no man can see them, wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible
The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted, is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere. Lib. 2. Cap. 4…. And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited, who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation (saith Bristowe) because it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter, before the last councell of Trent, you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. …2. & 56. Against Sanders booke of the sacrament. Lib. 6. Cap. 5.