Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 9 · Section 2
Of certaine particular textes.Bristowe.
I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare, that the text (1. Fulke.Cor. 3. of him that shalbe saued through fire) proueth not Purgatorie, affirming, that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life. Bristowe cauilling, that he affirmeth not, but speaketh doubtfully, &c. saith that he onelyonly sheweth it ought not to be expounded, after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire. But Augustines wordes are plaine: Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apo…tolus, talis debet intelligi, vt ambo per eum transeant, &c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh, ought to be vnderstoode such, that both may passe thorough it, that is, both he that buildeth vponupon this foundation, Golde, Siluer, pretious stones, and he also which buildeth Woode, Strawe, Stubble. For when he had saide this, he added: The fire shal trie euerie mans work, such as it is, if any mans worke remaine, that which he hath builded vponupon, he shall receiue rewarde: But if any mans worke be burned, he shall suffer losse, but he himselfe shalbe saued, yet so as it were through fire. The fire truely, is the tentation of tribulation, of which it is manifestly written in an other place, The fornace proueth the potters vessels, and tentation of tribulation, iust men. This fire in this present life, worketh that which the Apostle saith, &c. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life, & denied to be spoken of Purgatorie fire, thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe. Againe he speaketh not at all, against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire, that it shall hauehave an end, but against such as in his time did holde, That they which forsake not the name of Christ, and are baptised with his lauer in the Church, and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie, although they liue in neuer so great wickednes, which they neither wash away by repenting, nor redeemed with almes, but continue most stubburnely in them vntounto the end of this life, shalbe saued through fire, although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and wickednesse with long, but yet not eternal fire. But they which beleeue this, & yet are catholikes, seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence. For the holy scripture being consulted, answereth another thing &c. Enc. ad Laurentium. C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire, through which some should passe & not all, therfore against the popishe purgatorie, although he denye not but such a thing may be, yet it cannot be proued by this place, nor by any other place of scripture, as hereafter we shall see more at large in ye 3. diuision of this chapter, where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what, to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie. I answered Allen, apposing vsus, where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes, that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way, is cast into hell, from whence he shal neuer come, I alledged for that sense Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierom, & Chromatius. This is passing childish (saith Bristow:) For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing. But this in deede is passing impudence: for Allens words in the same diuision (after he hath posed Caluin, Flaccus, Luther, Iewel, about their interpretation of scriptures, are these: But I will not make a reckoning of their vnseemely gloses, I would their followers would only but aske them in all matters, from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word. Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title, is of that place, Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow, it is not true, that all those doctors hauehave that sense, which I affirme them to hauehave. But he only saith it, let their wordes be read, Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place, 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error: I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true. As in that saying, Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out, vntill he hauehave payde the vttermost farthing, some hauehave expounded, that he shall alwayes be punished: some, that hee shall not be alwayes punished. Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true? Mary (sayth Bristow, with as fine Rhetorike, as strong Logike:) Thus it is true, those he and he, are not one he: but he that shalbe alwayes punished, is he, that to the end of the way, that is this life, agreeth not with his aduersarie, whome he hath deadly iniuryed, as saying to him, fatue, and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis, which i… the prison of the damned. He that shal not be alwayes punished, is he whose iniury was but veniall, as Racha. And so both interpretations agree well, not onelyonly together, but also with the text it selfe. In deede, this is a fine distinction of he and he: but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way, shalbe cast into prison, from whence he shall neuer come, whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them, there is but one prison, from whence there is no deliuerance, vntil the last farthing be payde, which by those doctors exposition, is neuer payde. Whether the iniurie be greater or lesser, the punishment is eternall, without reconciliation, or as Saint Luke sayeth, diligence to be reconciled. If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the altar, doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee, goe and reconcile thy selfe, sayeth Christe, and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye. Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger, or saying Racha, and not onelyonly of saying Fatue. But as for, that he, which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way, what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him, he is not at all committed to prison, were his iniurie great or small. So that which He soeuer commeth into prison, there is no waye of escape, vntill hee hauehave payde the vttermost farthing, which debt is alwayes in paying and neuer discharged.
Secondly, whether the doctors giuegive any other kinde of testimonie Bristowe.against vsus.
First, about the booke of Machabees.
Where I sayde, that Allen pretendeth to proue the Fulke.booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church, when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD: Bristowe replyeth, as though all bookes are canonicall which hauehave consent with the Scriptures. Fulk reioyneth, that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so, but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes, is not canonicall.
Where I take exception, to the Councel of Carthage, which numbreth this booke among the canonical scriptures, as a Councell prouinciall: Bristowe sayth, it was by my confession confirmed in the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople in Trullo, therfore it hath ye authoritie of the whole true church. But I tooke no exception to the generalitie therof. But let it be as generall as you will, both that and the Councel in Trullo erred by your owne iudgement, seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authoritie of the Romane prelate, euen by name, as Gratian witnesseth, Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretike Art. 16. & 17. Beside this, I alledge, that this Councel of Carthage 3. among Canonicall Scriptures, nameth fiue bookes of Salomon, whereas the church alloweth but three. Bristowe answereth out of Augustine (which hee saith was one of the Councell) that the booke of wisedome and Ecclesiasticus, of a certeine similitude, were called Salomons bookes, whereas they were written by Iesus the sonn of Syrach, although the former he retract in rest. li. 2. Ca. 4. I aske no better to proue the errour of the Councell, but that they named fiue of Salomon for three. Secondly, it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Councell, yt although they called these books canonical, yet they meant them not to be of equall authoritie with the rest of the scriptures, Aug. cōtra Gaudent. lib. 2. Ca. 23. And this scripture of the Machabees, ye Iewes count not as the Lawe & the Prophets & the Psalmes, to whome our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses, saying, it behoueth that all things should be fulfilled yt are writtē of me in ye law & in yt Prophets & in ye Psalms. But it is receiued of the church not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read & heard. Bristowe saith I ascribe vntounto S. Augustine. yt which he reporteth of the Iewes, when I say that he alloweth them not in full authoritie wt the law, the Prophets & the Psalmes: fraudulently omitting, that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentēce that our Sauiour Christ appealeth to these onelyonly witnesses, namely the law, the Prophets & the Psalmes, & so the Iewes by ancient tradition, diuide all the canonical bookes into these three orders. Secondly, where I note yt Augustine alloweth not these bookes wtout condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer: Brist. saith, that all Catholikes & S. Peter do require ye same condition in ye reader of the whole scriptures, as S. Augustine doth in the Donatistes, which defended the murthering of thēselues by example of Rasis out of the Machabees. Wherunto I reply, yt although sobrietie be required in al readers of ye holy scripture, & other writings also: yet it is not required, as a condition making ye scriptures to be profitably receiued of ye church, if they be soberly read: for howsoeuer ye canonicall scriptures be read, & by whomsoeuer, although he be mad & drunk yt readeth or heareth them, yet are they not only profitably, but also necessarily receiued of the church, but this scripture of ye Machabes (saith Augustin) it is receiued not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. Who seeth not a gret difference between this scripture receiued vnderunder condition, & the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him selfe? But Augustine (saith Brist.) & the Councel, call these canonical, de doct. Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine nameth al that by any church are counted canonical, confessing in a maner as Bristow granteth, that they were not all generally receiued of the whole church, & therfore instructeth ye studēt of diuinitie to prefer some before others. The reasons that I brought to proue this booke, not to be canonical, are these, first because ye author cōmendeth Rasis for killing himself, which is contrary to Gods commaundment. Bristow answereth out of Augustine, yt the scripture hath only told it, & not cō mended it. But the place is manifest, 2. Mach. 14. that the author of ye booke doth not only report his murthering of him self, but also doth highly cōmend his manfulnes therin, willing (saith he) rather to dye valiantly, than to giuegive him selfe into the hands of wicked men, & to suffer reproch vnworthie for his noble stock, & so forth to the ende of the Chapter. Secondly, I said, that writer abridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason: but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other mens writings. Bristowe sayth, the booke of Kings in many places abridgeth stories, telling where they be written in other bookes that are not canonicall. To this I answere: the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirite of man, but for ciuile affaires, sendeth the reader to other writers, seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them. Furthermore he sayeth, S. Marke is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthewe, I aunswere, not so cōmonly, as falsly, for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Mathewe, and something he vtterly omitteth, which is not the office of a true abridger. And albeit yt he did, it were no answere to mine obiection, yt because the spirite of God telleth shortly, that which he himself had told at large, as in the Actes, the sermons of the Apostles, he is an abridger of Chronicles written by prophane men. The citing of the saying of Poets, Act. 17. & Tit. 1. proueth not that the holy ghost intending to write an historie of the church, vseth the labour of ye prophane man Iason the Cyrenian. I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their owne receiued witnesses, another thing to bring fiue bookes of an historie into one. Thirdly I sayd, the author of that booke confesseth, that he toke that matter in hand, that men might hauehave pleasure in it, which could not away with the long tedious stories of Iason. But the spirit of God serueth not such vaine delightes of men. Brist. asketh, if profitable breuitie be a vaine delight? but I speake not of the breuitie, but the cause why he affected breuitie, namely, that men might hauehave pleasure in his worke. Fourthly, I said, the author sheweth what labor & sweat it was to him to make this abridgement, ambitiously cōmendeth his trauell, & sheweth the difference between a storie at large, & an abridgement, all which things sauour nothing of Gods spirit. Also he confesseth his infirmitie, and desireth pardon if he hauehave spoken slenderly and barely, whereby hee testifieth sufficiently, yt he was no scribe of ye holy ghost. Bristow saith (that he ambitiously commendeth his trauel) is but my blasphemy, all ye rest standeth well ynough with the assistance of ye holy ghost. Concerning his ambitious cōmendation of his trauel, where to serueth his great cōplaint of ye great labour, sweat, & watching ye it cost him? & the wise similitude yt he taketh of him that maketh a feast, & seeketh other mens commoditie, & hath no smal sauor: so we also for many mens sake (saith he) are very well content to vndertake this great labour. A great labour I promise you, and to great profite of many. Likewise in the ende, a passing good similitude of wine, to finishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast. As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone, and then againe water; and as wine tempered with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: so the setting out of the matter deliteth the eares of them that reade the storie. But to the rest, Bristowe asketh, if the scribes of the holy ghost, must bee alwayes eloquent, or able to doe all without sweat or labour? I aunswere, as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them, so they neuer complain for the lack of it, but spirituall vtterance they hauehave abundantly, and that without sweat and watching, whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them. Neither doth S. Paul confesse, yt he lacketh vtterance, when he said he was rude in speaking: 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apostles did obiect against him, for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence, yt he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie. Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans, as Bristowe saith blasphemously, but sheweth that he was bold, vpō his office, because he was ye minister of Christ vntounto the gentils. Ro. 15 That he vsed ye hand of Tertius in writing yt Epistle, or any other, it was not to auoid ye labor of endi ting: Finally, yt he vsed intollerable paines in preaching, It proueth not, yt it cost him great labor, & trauel in studying, what to write or preach either, which ye spirit of God did minister vntounto him plentifully: But neuer doth he craue pardon, as one vncerteine whether he hauehave don well or no, as the writer of the Machabees doth, confessing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could, and in the beginning, leauing to the author ye exact diligēce of eueryevery particular, so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian. That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth, which are refelled both by the former book of Machabees and by Iosephus.
Where Allen alleged ye authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby, for in S. Ieroms works none such is found: now commeth Bristow, & telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees, in ye vulgar latine Bybles, taken out of ye sēse of Ierom, as diuers of those prefaces be, and that wil appeare by these two places, which I cite out o… him to proue yt booke not canonicall: The former is in his preface vponupon ye book of kings, where rehersing ye names of the canonical books, he omitteth this, and after saith expresly it is not in the Canon. Bristow aunswereth, it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes. As though the church of God, since Christ shoulde hauehave more bookes of the olde testament in ye canon, then ye church of the Hebrews had. Ierom saith yt this preface of his, may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin, v… scire valeamus, quicquid extrahos est, inter Apocripha esse ponendū. That we may be able to know yt whatsoeuer is beside these, is to be placed among ye apocriphall writings. So yt Ierom speaketh expresly, yt not onelyonly among the Iewes, but among Christians also these & al other books without ye canon, are to be taken for apocriphall.
The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs, that they were neither in the Churches canon. Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede ye bookes of Iudeth, Tobias & Machabees, but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures: so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia, she may reade to the edifying of the people, but not to confirme the authoritie of the churches doctrin: To wit (saith Bristow) against the Iewes, as though ye Churches doctrin, is not to be cō firmed against heretikes, and euen to ye Catholiks themselues, by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures.
That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall, after a sort, it was of me confessed, and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth, de praed. sanct. & de ciuit. Dei lib. 18. cap. 36.
But Ierom is also cited in his preface vponupon ye booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice: if that were so, what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees? But in deede it is not so: for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith, the words are these: With ye Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among ye hagiographaor books called holy writings, whose authoritie to strengthen those things yt come in controuersie, is iudged lesse conuenient: yet being written in the Chaldee tongue, it is counted among the stories. But because the Synod of Nice is redde to hauehave accounted it in the number of holy scriptures, I hauehave yelded to your request, &c.
First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa, which is false, as Hierom affirmeth Prolog. Gal. in lib. reg. Secondly, as Erasmus hath noted, he affirmeth not, that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell, but saith it is read to hauehave accounted perhaps in some such writer, as coyned the canon sent vntounto the Aphrican councell. Thirdly, if we shall vnderstand Hagiographa heere as Bristowe woulde hauehave them, not for those nine that be canonicall, but others that be Apocriphal, & yet holy writings, why shoulde we not likewise say, yt the computatiō of ye Nicen councel, was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings, and not among ye canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie? And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before, in saying yt Ierom doth simply refuse ye books of ye Machabees, & saith ye church receiueth thē not for canonicall, & euen that which Bristow saith, I should hauehave shewed, that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue them, that we might be able to know (saith he) speaking I dare say of himselfe & all other members of ye Church, that whatsoeuer books are without ye Canō of ye Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal: where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames, but Eusebiu: before them, saith plainly it is a counterfait, protesting that I speake it not to excuse them yt doubt of it, Bristo… is not content, except I woulde condemne thē for heretikes, which afterwarde reuersed their error, especially Luther. Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius, in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite, when he saith the cleane contrary, and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius, I know not out of whose translation But ye words of Eusebius are foreign: It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit.