Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 12
The twelfth Chapter.
A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke, Bristowe.that they which delight in such a Gardiner, may see his handie worke.
The first flower is that I say, Pur. 283. the sacrifice Fulke.propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onelyonly by the high Priest, once in the yeare. But Bristowe saith, that sacrifice propitiatorie, and for sinne are all one: which sacrifice for sinne was offered, not onelyonly once in the yeare, in the seast of expiation, but also in many other feast dayes, ordinarily and extraordinarily; when so euer any occasion was ministred &c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance, or his malice. Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie (vntounto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death, Heb. 9) with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne, saying they are all one. When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie, that the high Priest that day onelyonly entreth into the holiest place, that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering, &c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel, for all their sinnes once a yeare. Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation, of this principall sacrifice, which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onelyonly true sacrifice propitiatorie, which our Sauiour Christ offered on ye crosse; once for al: which proportion is obserued by the Apostle, Heb 9. ver. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.. &c. & Heb. 10. ver 11. & 12. But where Bristow saith, beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice, Fulke findeth none, but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe, he affirmeth that which was neither said of me, nor is truely collected of him. For I saide, that Cyprian in these termes, sacrifice, priest, altar, alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe, because he vseth also the name of Leuites, by which he calleth Gods ministers. Let Bristowe nowe goe and say, that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatori… in the lawe.
The second flower of mine ignorance is, where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha…aeus, I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man, to wit, either Iason, Menelaus, or Alcimus, and namely Menelaus, the worst of them all three: and also that the other Priestes of that time, were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles, 2. Machab. 4. In so much, that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus, if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade, yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles. Frst hee maruelleth, howe I could thinke 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 priestes without spot, hauing their heart in the lawe of God. I aunswere being such as they were described. 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes. But although he were an enimy of gentility, in that corrupt time and state, he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie, although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God.
His next accusation is, that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers. I aunswere, I iustifie not their title, more then their maners and religion, but whereas by his greekelatine word, he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time, he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance. For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this: Onias, Mathathias, Iudas. Ionathas, Simon: The truth is, that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes, neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth, shewe any thing to proue that they were: It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest, but not that he was the high priest. And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees, testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan, for 7. yeares there was no high priest, which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph. Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine. Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem, there was no such good Bishop, as Allen saith: but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus, as Iosephus calleth him, which was depriued 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 Machabees Bethzetha. But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas, and not Menelaus, he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem, for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter, that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee, and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead: which story, how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons, I hauehave great meruaile. But that Menelaus, as he was then in office of the high priest, though vnworthy, so that he was at Hierusalem, it appeareth by this record of the time. The Temple was purged (as Bristowe confesseth,) and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the MonethMonth Cislewe, and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes, whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the monethmonth of Iupiter, Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe, with letters bearing date the 15. of the monethmonth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes. 5. Mac. 11. And ye next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie, and did execution vponupon Menelaus, and made warre vponupon Iudas, &c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest, which continued in that place 3. yeares. Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees, agree not with the story of the first booke, as in deede it doth not, let Bristowe looke …to it, that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall: it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke, by the report of the same booke: and by Iosephus, who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation, better than Bristowe, whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious, that hee would charge me with ouersight, in that hee is most ignorant him selfe: and that against his Maister Allen, who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop, and not Iudas him selfe.
The third chapter, of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance, is saide to be about Antichrist: As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way, or worke his mysterie. But this is a fable of Bristowe, neuer affirmed by me. As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation, of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse, of the time of Antichristes reigne, &c. because they are condemned by the onelyonly authoritie of Bristowe, without any argument or testimonie of Scripture, or Fathers, I will referre the reader to such places, where I affirme any of them, to consider my reasons, and to iudge indifferently.
The fourth point is, that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe, but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vsus. Pur. 316. Against this, his reasons are these. Why sir, did not he vponupon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man, and a Priest to him selfe as to God? Sir, the Scripture telleth me, that Christ being an high Priest, by his eternall spirite, offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD: Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo, you will say to him selfe as God, because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided. Yet I trust you will distinguish ye humanitie from the deitie, & so Christ offered not his body to him selfe, yt is, neither to his humanitie, nor to ye person of the mediatour, 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 Sonne onelyonly. And although it were graunted, that Christ offering him selfe to God, was offered to him selfe, yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake, can offer the body of Christ, yea whole Christ to him selfe, 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 sonne. As though it were al one to pray to Christ, & to offer his body to Christ, him self to him self. The fift: That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositiō to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will. My words are of Allens supposition, that the ful force of Christs death would sup vp al sinne & al paine for sinne, death temporall, and eternall, hell, purgatorie, and all paine, &c. But what reasons hath Bristow against my saying? First: my assertion is (saith he) As though it were not of force to worke any whit more than it worketh in acte, as to saue so much as one of them that shal not be saued. I say, it is of force to worke euen as much as God will, but not to worke against the will of God. But I speake contrarie to the expresse scripture. He is the propitiation for our sinnes, and not for our sinnes only, but also for the sinnes of the whole world. 1. Ioh. 2. If you vnderstand the whole world, for eueryevery man in the world, then it foloweth, that God is reconciled for al men, & so no man shall be damned. But S. Iohn meaneth by his general word, al the elect of the world: as when he saith, The whole world is set on mischiefe; he meaneth not eueryevery person, but all the reprobate 1. Ioh. 5. And that Christes death is not a propitiation of the sinnes of al the wicked of the world and reprobates, it is certaine, by that he refuseth to pray for the world, that is, for the reprobates of the world, Iohn 17.
But Bristowe vrgeth me with mine owne saying, in an other contrarie to this. Concerning the sufficiencie of Christes redemption, there is nothing that can be spoken so magnifically, but that the worthinesse thereof passeth and excelleth it. This should hauehave come in among the contradictions, if Bristowe had remembred it. But I beseech you sir, in commending the sufficiencie of Christes redemption, doe I extend the force of his death beyond the limits of his will? Are any more redeemed than Christ would?
The sixt: I say, that to remit sinnes, is proper to his diuinitie. That is (saith Bristowe) as though Christ doth not remit sinnes, according to his humanitie. I say Christ which is a person consisting of God and man, doth remitte sinnes by absolute auctority, but that is proper to his diuinity and not to his humanity, as for the power which he hath giuen to his ministers, to remit sinne, is not absolute, but to declare remission of sinnes in his name. Neither did the people which glorified God for giuing such power to men Matth. 9. acknowledge the doctrine of the Church for the remission of sinnes by the ministery of man, but praised God for giuing the gift of healing vntounto Christ, whom yet as young scholers, they acknowledge not to be God, but an holy Prophet sent of God. And so the other Euangelists report their praising of God to hauehave beene for that they neuer sawe it so: they had seene wonderfull things that day. Mark. 2. Luk. 5.
The 7. he chargeth me to teach a pestilent doctrine of desperation, Where I say, there be sinnes for which the Church ought not to pray, euen of men remaining in this life: for which it is not lawfull to pray: which by the mercy of God are not pardonable: it is false, that so long as men are in this worlde, they may repent. For which he quoteth Pur. 274 127. 128. 135. 283.
After he asketh how many such sinnes there are? and saith in one place I name two, and after more, and after concludeth that in some I say, that it is vnlawful to pray for any wicked person, of what sort so euer his wickednesse be, so long as he continueth in his wickednesse: yea, and it is vnpossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickednesse. This is a pestilent slander, for I neuer accounted any sinne irremisible, but onelyonly the sinne against the holy Ghost: for obstinate and willfull apostasie is ye sinne against the holy Ghost, whereof a fruite is finall contempt of all that preach Christ, and of all meanes that Christ hath wrought to bring vsus to repentance, such was the sinne of Saul and of the obstinate Iewes, for whome Samuel and Ieremie are forbidden to pray.
As for that I should say, it is not lawfull to pray for any wicked person, &c. I neuer thought it, but onelyonly for those that sinne against the holy Ghost, of whom Saint Iohn saith, they sinne vntounto death, and I say not that any man should pray for that. 1. Ioan. 5. Neuerthelesse Bristowe affirmeth, that we are worse then the Nouatians, when I say, That some sinnes neither by the mercy of God are pardonable. But where doe I say so? he quoteth before, Pur 128. And what be my wordes there? Verily who so will turne the booke, shal reade them thus: For by the iustice of God all sinnes are mortall, but by his mercy they are all pardonable, except that sinne vntounto death, wherof Iohn speaketh. 1. Ioh. 5. Thus am I worse thā a Nouatian, for saying, ye sinne against the holy Ghost shall neuer be pardoned, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. But perhaps Bristowe will cauill, that euen that sinne is pardonably by Gods mercy, if God would: which is not contrary to that I saide. For I speake of that which may be, Gods eternall will standing, according vntounto which the Apostle saith, it is impossible that they which so offende can be renewed by repentaunce. Hebrewes 6.
The heresie of the Nouatians as Bristowe affirmeth of the report of Aresius their Bishop was: That they who after baptisme, fall into that kinde of sinne. which the holy scriptures call sinne vntounto death, ought not to be admitted to receiue the diuine mysteries, but to be exhorted to repentaunce, and to looke for hope of forgiuenesse, not of the Priestes, but of God, who both can and hath authoritie to forgiue sinnes. In which sentence, a double error of the Nouatians is included: first that they tooke that sinne vntounto death wherof Saint Iohn speaketh. 1 Iohn. 5. to be falling through frailty in time of persecution, euen as Bristowe doth, the willfull prolapsion and Apostasie that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 6. Secondly that they thought the sinne vntounto death might be remitted of God, contrary to the manifest denunciation of our Sauiour Christe. Matth. 12. As Bristowe doeth the sinne against the holy Ghoste, which is all one and the same. But that the Catholique Churche did then by her Priestes forgiue all sinnes without accepting the sinne against the holy Ghost, which Bristowe affirmeth out of the confession of Acesius, I maruell howe he proueth. Yea, he is so impudent to say, that the Protestantes also doe admit all to their Caluines breade, so the blasphemous dogge barketh against the holie Communion: whereas we neuer receiue any whome we knowe to be excommunicated, and much lesse would we receiue any apostata, that is cleane fallen from Christianitie, not of weakenesse or ignorance, but of malicious contempt; or any whome we might knowe to hauehave sinned that sinne vntounto death, and to hauehave blasphemed against the holie Ghost.
But nowe let vsus see what miserable comfort Bristowe will minister against desperation, in answering such places of scripture, as I brought, to proue the sinne against the holie Ghost to be irremissible.
First the place of 1. Iohn 5. he saith is meant of them that be deade and damned in hell, as he hath taught vsus: cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation, as false and newe, he citeth Augustine. in ret. li. 19. cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I holde, but afterward he addeth, if he end his life in this peruersitie. For we must despaire of no man, be he neuer so wicked, so long as he is in this life. Neither is praier made vnwisely for him, who is not despaired of. Here are two contrarie expositions of one man, in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place, and not whether better or last pleased the authour of them.
That no man is to be despaired of, while he liueth, as it is contrarie to the scripture, so to the practise of the Church, which refused to pray for Iulianus the apostata, and prayed to God against him.
Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon, denounced him to his face to be impious, and an apostata, and enimie of God. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo. lib. 5. cap. 4.
The second text, Heb. 6. Bristowe expoundeth it of falling through frailtie in persecution, of them which can not be renewed by baptisme, but the Apostle saith expressely by repentance, and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling, but of prolapsion or falling cleane away from Christ, with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption.
The terrible denuntiation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristowe faith, he speaketh it not to driue them to desperation, but to moue them to repentance. What if that be graunted, that by shewing the daunger of malitious obstinacie, which groweth to irremissible wickednes, he should admonish them to beware in time, as the Apostle doth, Heb. 6. Doth it therefore followe, that no man sinneth irremissiblie, while he liueth? Although it is plaine, that our sauiour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickednes, that nothing could reclay me them, or bring them to repētance. But Bristow would make me contrarie to my selfe, who though in expresse words I count D. Allen & his fellowes such as (by you) Heb. 6. cannot repent, yet do exhort them truly to repent. &c. Pur. 461. But how proueth he, that I count Allen and his fellowes such as cannot repent? Forsooth because I say, they hauehave sometime beene lightened and tasted of the good gifte of God. Why sir, are all such come to prolapsion? I trow not, In deede I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion, that are curable. Whether Allen were euer a protestant, I know not: but certaine I am, that some of his fellowes hauehave beene lightned and were protestants, of whom I speake, and not of him. If I say Bristow and his fellowes which are laymen: doe I say Bristow is a lay man? This wilfull & malicious cauilling (Bristow) if you take not heede of it in time, argueth that you are fallen verie deepe, if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasie.
But this is a cunning cōforter of them that are in desperation, which affirmeth, that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sinne and blasphemie shall not be remitted, then he saith that all other sinne and blasphemie shalbe remitted: and therfore many one, yea, and aboue all number may be and is forgiuen, the sinne against the holy ghost.
He meaneth, because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiuen. But if that condition were to be vnderstoode in them also that sin against the holy ghost, what distinction were there for which he should say? that blasphemie and sinne shall not be forgiuen, neither in this world, nor in ye world to come? Such a sinner hath no remission of sinnes, but is guiltie of eternal damnation. For that none shalbe forgiuen, without repentance, as euerie man knew without that distinction. But Bristow would hauehave it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgiue the sinne against the holy ghost, and so he forgaue one of those Pharisees, and he the verie worst of them all: namely S. Paule, who had bin indeede a Pharisee, as he cōfesseth. Act. 23. & 26. but none of those Pharisees: for he knewe not, Christ in the flesh. 2. Cor 5. yea, he had beene a persecuter and a blasphemer, as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees, for he was an elect vessel of God, and his persecution and blasphemie was not of malice or sinne against the holy ghost, but of ignorance and blinde zeale of God: for he addeth immediatly, but I obteined merciemercy, because I did it ignorantly in vnbeleefe. As for those Pharisees, against whom our Sauiour Christ thundreth that iudgement, did blaspheme the holy ghost against their owne conscience, and knowledge, malitiously attributing vntounto the diuell, that which they knew to be the finger of God.
That which I speake out of Samuel, Ieremie, and Ezekiel, Bristow saith, is all spoken in one sense, of temporall matters, to wit of casting Saule from his kingdome, and the Iewes into captiuitie. But except the persons had bene incurable, God would hauehave beene intreated to giuegive them repētance, & to hauehave continued Saule in his kingdome, and the people in their countrie. The rule that Ezechiel. 33. is vnderstoode of sinnes that are not against the holy ghost, as the examples doe plainely declare.
The 8. poynt is, that strange interpretation of the creede, (a… he calleth it) Christ descended into hell to redeeme vsus out of hell, by suffering the wrath of God for our sinnes. Heb. 5. First Bristow saith, there is neuer a word of that article, and much lesse of the interpretation thereof, in that chapter, yet after to proue that to bee prayer, which I saide was a complaint, as though it might not be be a complayning prayer, he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ, who in the daies of his flesh, with a mightie crie, and with teares, offered vp prayers and supplications to him that was able to saue him, out of death, and was heard from his feare or from that he feared foreign. But by this text, Bristow would proue, that Christ was not forsaken of his father, no not corporally, although he complayned, that he was forsaken, as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more then needed, when he sayde, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which to him that was God, was greater torment of hell, then any heart of man can conceiue. And therefore Bristow, which maketh all to stand in the bodilie death of Christ, and raileth at Caluine for shewing how necessarie it was for Christ, to suffer in soule as much as in body, for the redemption of ye whole man, doth nothing but cauil & slaūder, one while fayning yt Caluine should make two deathes of Christ, another while, yt he was in feare lest he should hauehave bin dāned for euer &c. Which he saith also shalbe my reply. But when Bristow saith that Christs bodily death without any suffering of his soule was the full redemption of the world, he maketh his tormentes of minde, whereof he complaineth that his soule was heauie vntounto death, which made him to sweate bloode before his body was touched, to be of no force, except it were to argue great imbecillitie of Christ, who feared so much bodylie death, that many of his seruantes hauehave ioyfully imbraced, and that strange crie and teares with which he vttered his prayers on the crosse, and that most lamentable complaint, that God had forsaken him, were for nothing, but for that he was not deliuered from the crosse, (as Bristow writeth) it is too much iniurious to his most bitter passion to imagine, and therefore we must needes acknowledge, that he suffered more in the sight of God, whose iustice he was to satisfie, 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 shew, 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 sinne, &c. there is no more reason why Bristowe should charge vsus with it, then with those other blasphemies, that Christ did dispaire in God, or blaspheme God, or commit some other sinne against God, for our redemption, which he affirmeth to be maintained of some Caluinistes. For which detestable slaunder, if he hauehave no better ground then he sheweth, let him remember yt the mouth which lyeth killeth the soule. I wil spare to amplifie, though I lack no matter, albeit yt Bristow fayneth mōsters of slaū ders, as Iupiters Giantes, & then casteth thē downe with thūderbolts, deriding myknowledge in amplification.
The 9. is about the honor of the virgin Marie, wherein first he chargeth me with the heresie of the Heluidians & Antidicomarianites, who were condemned for heretikes for denying her perpetual virginitie; whereas he cometh neerer to the Colliridians, likewise cōdemned, thē we to ye Heluidians. But let vsus see his impudent quarels. First I say: As for the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ, as we thinke it is true, so because the scripture hath not reueiled it, neither perteineth it vntounto vsus, we make no question of it. Here is a great cōiunctiō with heretikes, which trobled ye Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to proue by ye scriptures: yet saith Bristow, you forge a principle of onelyonly scripture in their fauour. Surely that principle as it is not forged, so it fauoreth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to proue by the scriptures, but within 4. lines afore, I am contrary to my selfe, where I say all truth may be proued by the scripture. If I had to doe with a man of reason, as I hauehave to do with a papist, he would vnderstand my propositiō according to the whole matter in controuersie, of such things as are necessarie or profitable for a christian man to know vntounto saluatiō. For otherwise I thinke many things to be true, that are not conteined in the scriptures: As I thinke that Bristow lacketh wit, learning, & honesty, thus to quarell which is not written in the scriptures, but gathered by other reasons: yet he saith, I might wc more honestie hauehave saide, yt it may be proued by scripture, where she saith, Luk. 1. Because I know no man, that is (saith he) because I hauehave made a vow of virginitie. A like matter, yt she would marie if she had made a vow of viginitie. Yet Bristow cōfesseth this place proueth not inuincibly her perpetuall virginitie, although it so proue her vow. But if Bristow were condēned, or had vowed to lie in prison vntil he could frame an inuincible argument to proue her vow, out of that place, yea, or any other place of the scriptures, it were all one, as if he were condemned to perpetuall prison or vowed the same.
Another poynt of that dishonor is, where I controld 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 sauiour of his mother, or that she had no neede of his saluation. And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more then Augustine, as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sinne, because he saith against the Pelagians, that he would hauehave no question of her for the honour of our Lord, when he speaketh of sinnes. For hereof we know that more grace was giuen to her, to ouercome sinne of all partes, which was worthy to conceiue and bring forth him, …om it is certaine that he had no sin, Denat. & grat. 136. It is all one with Bristow, to ouercome sinne, & to be voyde of all sinne. What victorie is there without a battel? if the flesh in ye virgin Marie, did not rebel against ye spirite, what victorie had she by grace? But it is plaine Pelagianisme, to hold that she was voyde of sinne or perfectly righteous. The Pelagian nameth also, ipsam etians domini &c. the verie mother of our Lord and Sauiour, which he saith it is necessarie for godlines, that we confesse that she was with out sinne. But thereof Augustine for ye honour of our Lord will hauehave no question: signifying that although she were not cleere and exempted from fi…e, but had grace to ouercome sinne, yet for reuerence of Christ her sonne, he would not reason thereof to bring her within the cōmon cōpasse of al siners. But Bristow perceiueth that I would not hauehave so answered, seeing I affirme yt by the reprehension of Christ, Iohn, 2. she did offend, for he would neuer hauehave reproued his mother without a cause. And said, what hauehave I to do with thee, woman? except she had intermedled in his office, more then of dutie she ought. But Bristow would colour his reproofe, two wayes: one by false translation of the words foreign? what to me and thee, O woman? not vnderstanding the greek phrase, which is by those words to refuse to hauehave to doe with one. As the diuels Matt. 8. cried foreign? What hauehave we to do with thee, Iesus, thou sonne of God, and not as Bristowe translateth, What to vsus and thee Iesus &c. But because Bristow saith, that if Christ should meane, that the want of wine perteined neither to him nor to his mother, yet she were not discharged of error, to moue him in a matter, which belongeth neither to him nor her: He sayth, I might doe well to tell him, what were those sinnes of hers. I thinke the answere of Christ sheweth what her offence was here, and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle vnderunder colour of her motherly authoritie, with matter apperteining to his diuine office, of being Christ the mediator, with which she had nothing to doe, as a mother, but was esteemed of him as a woman, who knew when it was conuenient for him to doe, whatsoeuer were for the glorie of Gods kingdome, to be done, without her or any other bodies admonition. Neither doe I charge her as Chrysostom in Ioann. Hom. 20. Optabat. enim. &c. For she wished that he might now winne the fauor of men, and that she might be made more noble by the fauour of her sonne. And perchance she was moued with some humane affection, euen as his brethren, when they saide, shew thy selfe to the world, being desirous by his miracles, to winne themselues a fame. Therefore he answered more sharpely: what hauehave I to doe with thee, woman? my houre is not yet come. For that he did reuerence his mother, Luke doth testifie, that he was subiect to his parentes, and this Euangelist doth shew, how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion. For where his parentes did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD, did offend nothing, it was meete and necessarie for the sonne to be obedient, neither could he deny obedience without greate perill. Contrarywise, when they desire an vnseasonable thing, and that which would hauehave beene an hinderance to spirituall thinges. 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 hauehave commanded her sonne in all thinges, by her authoritie &c. But the councell of Trent (saith Bristow) sheweth that she had more neede of Christes grace then all other saints, to preserue her from sinne. But in the meane time, she had no neede of his redemption, for the remission of sinne, who was appoynted to saue his people from their sinnes, who came to seeke and to saue that which was lost, both of the house of Israel, and of the Gentiles, so many as attained saluatiō. So therefore howsoeuer Bristow scorneth at my diuinity, I will still conclude that the virgin Mary, beeing so principal a persō of Christs people, was saued from her sinnes, by the redemption of his bloode, was lost, but sought vp, and saued by him. Which diuinitie being taken out of the scriptures, I trust is more commendable, then the contrarie doctrine deriued from the Pelagians, and defended by the Papistes.
The 10. poynt of mine ignorance is, about the definition of an heretike, whom I saide to be a man in the Church. I hauehave shewed before, that I distinguish betweene him that is in the Church, and him that is of the Church; a Papiste, an Anabaptist, may be in the Church, but they cannot be of the Church, except they repent. Where I added vntounto my definitiō, that if any of vsus can be proued obstinately to mainteine our opinion, contrarie to the doctrine of the scriptures, we refuse not to be counted heretikes. Bristow saith, they may say the like. But the triall is all. Bristow saith, they bring plaine scriptures to proue that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions, is the doctrine of the scriptures. And we say the same, that whatsoeuer the Apostles deliuered in speech, they deliuered also in writing, and neither contrarie to other. But that all true doctrine necessarie to saluation, is not conteined in the scriptures, that you proue not, neither that such things were of the Apostles deliuerie, as you call traditions of the Apostles. As for the particular poyntes you prate of, concerning the time of the Churches persecution, and Antichristes raigne, hauehave beene answered in their proper places. The wordes of Christ, This is my body: we acknowledge to be true, in such sense as he spake them, neither can you prooue that they importe your carnall Carpernaiticall presence, what you hold of Iustification by workes, Worshipping of Images, Insufficiencie of Christes redemption, Impeccabilitie of Marie &c. contrarie to the expresse and plaine textes of the scripture, it were out of place here o make rehersall.
The 11. is mine ignorance in wondring at Allen for saying, that a christian scholer should first beleeue, and after seeke for vnderstāding, he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there hauehave I answered.
The 12. poynt proceedeth of like ignorance, where I am said to wonder, when I heare that the sacrifice of the masse is a likenesse of the sacrifice of Christs death vponupon the crosse. And then I am asked whether I know not that sacramentes are not likenesses of other thinges: and Augustine is called to witnesse, with much adoe, as though it is all one to hauehave sacramentes which are similitudes of Christs death, and to hauehave a sacrifice of similitude or likenesse, which I saide truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, that there should be any shadowes or resemblances, when the body and substance it selfe is come: which I spake, supposing that Allen by likenes of the exemplar, meaneth the masse with all the apish pageants thereof, to be like the sacrifice of Christes death. And indeede it was that monstruous saying of Allen, which I wondered at. By likenesse of ye exemplar (as indeede being in an other maner the verie selfesame. But Bristow setting a good countenance, vponupon so great an absurditie, asketh what boy hath not hearde it saide, of one & the same man being changed by age, sicknesse, apparel, shauing, &c. he is like or vnlike himselfe? But tontrariewise, what boy in Oxford or Cambridge, would not reply, that this similitude or likenesse or vnlikenesse, is of two seuerall shapes, and not of one and the same substance vntounto it selfe: as Allen saith, the sacrament is like the body of Christ, and is the very same in another maner that is vnderunder couerture of accidentes that belong to another kinde of substance. But Bristowe is not so quicke to vnderstand me where I vnderstand not my selfe as he weeneth, where I say: neither will it helpe, that Allen saith, it is the selfesame in another manner, so longe as the same respect remaineth: I am sorie that Bristowe is so dull headed, that he cannot vnderstand, what the same respecte meaneth in opposition, which if it not obserued in the thinges opposed, they are not alwayes opposite, and specially relatiues who hange altogether vponupon respect. But Bristowe asketh who can imagine, that the verie same respecte remaineth, when the same manner doth not remaine?
Why sir? what is the respect of the likenesse of the sacrifice of the masse, with the exemplar? seeing you confesse the manner tobe vnlike, but the verie identitie of the thing sacrificed, which is the monster that I maruaile 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 Isaak, but yet after a farre other manner? yea, to follow your owne wise examples, is not Abraham father of Isaak in the same respecte, when Isaak is yonge, and when he is olde; when he is cloathed, and when he is naked; when he is shauen, and when he was bearded; when he is sicke, and when he is whole? Such are the manners in which you houlde that the sacrifice of the masse, 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 onelyonly to death. What is it? to make her no wife, that was a wife. Verily diuorsement for adulterie maketh her no wife, that was a wife, as is gathered euen by those textes of scriptures which Bristowe quoteth Matt. 5. & 19. Mark. 10. &c. where the exception of fornication, maketh the case to be the same that was vsed by permission of the lawe, in diuorsementes, and mariage after diuorsementes. But Bristowe saith, I vtter herein my skil, in many thinges. As in saying that mariage after diuorsements is dispensed with all by the Pope. And doe I not say true, although the Popes law denyeth such mariage to be lawfull? Are there not many examples of such dispensations?
Secondly I say, that the Popes canon lawe hath farre many more causes of diuorsement then for adulterie. Bristow distinguisheth the perpetuall diuorse, for adulterie, where the innocent partie cannot be compelled to receiue the guiltie partie, although he become neuer so chast; and separation, where the furie of a man is so great, that the wife is in danger of her life: asking if we doe not allow her to dwell away from him vntill he be amended: No verily, but we would compell him to lie in prison from her, vntill his amendement might sufficiently appeare. But what saith your lawe, concerning frigiditie, concerning error in the condition of the person, as if she marie a man which is bond, whō she supposed to hauehave beene free &c. Doth not your lawe allow diuorsements perpetuall in such cases? But where I wish that adulterers might be punished with death, first he quarelleth, as though I held that the Iudiciall lawe were stil to be obserued: as though it be not free in such poyntes, as it is conuenient for other common welthes to receiue it, albeit, it is not necessarie. Secondly he houldeth that a man was not punished by death, if he sinned against his wife with a single woman. Where as the case is expresly of a single man, lying with another ' mans wife, or of one that was betroathed to another man, which must needes be all one, of a maried man lying with a single woman. Leuit. 20. and Deut. 22. And yet he noteth mine ignorance of the lawe: because I charge the Papistes to allow dispensation for such persons to marie, as the lawe of God and nature abhorreth. Then he asketh me, what lawe of God do I meane? but Leu. 18? and whether I thinke that law to binde Christians? Yea verily, for the sense of nature abhorreth all those forbidden coniunctions. What else moued the heathen Romanes to make lawes euen of the same? But Bristow bringeth in Gods dispensation in the old Testament, which is false: for after the propagation of mankinde, for which it was of necessitie allowed, it can neuer be proued that God allowed any one of those mariages forbidden. 18.
But the Pope dispenseth not onelyonly with marying of the brothers wife in affinitie, but euen with the Vncle to marie his Neece, in consanguinitie, as we see in the mariage of King Philippe of Spaine in our daies.
The 14. after such ignorance in Gods lawe discouered, Bristow marueileth not if I be ignorant in the Popishe Churches lawe and diuinitie, in making it a certaine thing, that the Pope giueth his pardons by the sacrament of penance. Athough it be no great shame for me to professe mine ignorance in many of the popes lawes & some part of his diuinitie: yet herein Bristow doth me wrong, to charge me to say absolutely, that ye Pope giueth his pardons by the sacramēt 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 trowe that the power of binding and loosing is exercised many other wayes besides that sacrament. Seeing the Master of ye sentences cōprehendeth vnderunder the title of the sacrament of penance, al that power or what soeuer he can enquire or define of it Lib. 4. Dist. 14. 15. 16. 17. But if sins may be forgiuē in popery without repentance, & that ye Popes pardons require no repentāce in them that should take ye benifite of them, it is one poynt of poperie that I am content to confesse that I hauehave learned of Bristow.
The 15. poynt is, that I am ignorant in our own diuinity, because I wonder that a Papist should say, that God sometime punisheth sinne with sinne, and complaine that when we say, but halfe somuch, they chardge vsus to make God the auctor of sinne. For Bristowe asketh, if it be not a cōmon position & large discourses vpō it in our masters bookes, that God is the author of sinne? O impudent and malitious lyer, hast thou read those bookes of Caluine Insti. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. & Melancthō. ad Rom. which thou quotest, and darest thou for shame of the world, if thou hauehave no feare of God, to charge them with holding such a blasphemous positiō, when they in the same bookes doe refute it, as an horrible slaunder which they neuer thought of: but alwayes affirmed that God as a righteous iudge, not as an euill author Ioseth Satan, and vseth his ministerie for the punishmēt of sin & sinners, and for the trial and amendment of his children as in Dauid & Iob? As for those blasphemies that God worketh sinne in vsus by himselfe, willing, appoynting, and predestinating vsus to sin, no lesse thē he, which leadeth a blind man out of his way &c. are nothing else but Bristowes lies & slanders alwaies detested of those godly writers, & of all them that truly professe and imbrace the Gospel.
The 16. poynt 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 Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour after Valens the Arrian. Surely where I learned that he was a persecutor of the Church, I might hauehave 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. yeares agoe. Which being so vulgar a matter, I thought none had beene so malicious to charge me with ignorance therof. But indeede he chargeth me very iniuriously, for when I say after that when Iulianus the Apostata was Emperour, I meane to shewe how persecution and Gentility was restored after that Constantine had giuen peace, beside the trouble of heresie which was in the time of Constantius and Constans, to whom I ioined Valens, as agreeing in that same heresie of Arrianisme. Againe where I saide, the newe Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue at the Emperors charges, for the encrease of Christian faith among them: Bristowe asketh me, what Emperor, or what faith, but Catholike or Popish? That which I saide of the Syrian Testament, was to shewe that the Churches in Chaldea hauehave preserued the scriptures, which yet are not subiect to the Church of Rome; with the Emperors profession I delt not, but his purpose I suppose, was to encrease Christian faith, and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not encrease Popish faith, seeing Papists are so vnwilling, that the people should read the worde of God in the natiue language.
Fourthly that I say the fathers alledging the succession of Bishops against heretikes, specially named the Church of Rome, because those heretikes for ye most part had ben somtimes of ye Church of Rome, as Valentinus, Marciō, Nouatus. Against this Bristowe telleth me, yt Allen speaketh also of the Arrians, Donatists, and al heretikes. But I spake of those fathers, that alledged the succession of Bishops, namely Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus, Cerdon and Marcion, that they were at Rome vnderunder Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession, and yet taught his heresie priuily and was excommunicated. For Nouatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome, Eusebius is cleare. Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus, whereas Nouatus had beene of Carthage, but from thence was also gone to Rome. I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greeke writers to be deceiued, as Bristowe saith, and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Nouatus, and the other called Nouatus in steade of Nauatus, which name was then in vse. But seeing the person of the heretike is certaine, it is folly to striue for his name, I hauehave shewed mine authour for Nouatus … Rome, and so for the rest: wherefore I hauehave not bewraied any ignorance therein, as Bristowe pretendeth.
The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is, where I shewe, wherein the communion of Saintes consisteth: In that I say, one can not merit for an other, no not for him selfe, but eueryevery man hath his worthinesse of Christe. As though (saith Bristowe) neither Christ could merite for any other, no nor for him selfe, because he had his worthinesse of God. But I say that Christ, because he was God, had his worthinesse of him selfe, and therefore did merite for vsus. And see what secret blasphemie is contained in this comparison of Bristowe: Where he would make a similitude of meriting betweene vsus which please not God, but onelyonly through his mercy; with Christe, who satisfied the iustice of God. But Bristowe chargeth me so to define the cōmunion of Saints, that I allow no place for the praiers of ye members aliue, made for others yt are aliue. A vile slander, when I speake of the grace and giftes of God, which as eueryevery one hath receiued of God, so of charitie he is bound to imploy the same to the profite of his fellowe members here on earth. But if we be bound of charitie to pray one for an other (saith Bristowe) whie are not these members in heauen as well? Because there is not a lawe appointed for them that are in heauen, and them that be in earth, we knowe praier is commaunded vsus, we knowe not any praier commaunded them: neither are we to trust to any such thing. But the Scripture saith, that Christes friendes doe reioice in heauen with his penitents in earth, It saith so in deede of the Angels, and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirites, but of their knowledge: and if their knowledge were certaine, yet it followeth not, that they pray for the conuersion of sinners: and much lesse that the mutuall offices of louelove, whereby one member hath compassion with an other, can by any meanes touch the state of the deade, to receiue any benefite thereby. But an other quarrell 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 betweene the members of your naturall body, if they did onelyonly receiue life from your head, and could not vse the saide life to profite one an other? &c. This man hath great leasure to trifle without any matter. Who so shall reade my wordes, Pur. 199. which he quoteth, shall finde me to say, That the communion of the whole body, is the participation of life, and all other offices of life that eueryevery member and the whole body hath of the head, as S. Paule teacheth plainely. Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life, for one member to assist an other in that it may, and as it ought, I hauehave comprehended it, but that Bristowe doth wilfully holde my saying, and then play with it at his pleasure. Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen: that he will hauehave other workes & waies of saluation, besides ye bloud of Christ, because he groundeth all works and waies of saluation in the bloud of Christ. But I reporting his words truly, by plain distribution do gather, that Allen will hauehave other workes and waies of saluation beside the bloud of Christ: except you will say, that is no way nor worke of saluation of it selfe, without these waies and works of men. If the bloud of Christ of it selfe be one way and worke of saluation: and there be other waies and workes, though grounded in it, then are there more waies and workes of saluation, than the onelyonly redemption of Christe, which I vnderstand by the bloud of Christ, so I hauehave done Allen no iniurie, but he hath offered hainous iniurie to the bloud of Christe, and so doe al they which mixed it with any to purchase Gods fauour, who is reconciled by none other merite or satisfaction, but only by the bloud of the crosse of his Sonne our Lorde Iesus Christe, to whome be praise for euer more.
In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion, Bristowe doth only shew, yt there is in my two bookes stuffe ynough to make an other booke as bigge as this, to the discredit of my partie. I trust this booke of his, as bigge as it is, hath wrought no discredite to the cause I maintaine, because I hauehave shewed howe it is stuffed with lies, slaunders, falsifications, and cauillations; such stuffe he may hauehave great store in the diuell his maisters schoole, to make a booke tenne times as bigge as this was: but for so much as he hath not aunswered any one of mine arguments, or refelled any one of mine aunsweres to Allen, in any right order, leauing the defence of him (as he pretendeth to defend the Church, I confesse he hath left matter sufficient, for any man, that will vndertake the confutation of my bookes (which this his vnorderly and vnsufficient replie, notwithstanding) I protest to remaine still in their strength and vnanswered.
GOD BE PRAYSED.