shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
liue sanctification and not be sanctified righteousnes and not be righteous redemption and not be redeemed for all these is Christ made vnto vs Life Righteousnes Sanctification and Redemption as the Scripture testifieth Bellarmine spendeth one whole Chapter in this argument to proue that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and therevpon expresly affirmeth that though they receiue him yet they receiue not his iustifying grace nor his merits nor the fruit and effect of his death and passion together with him Of the same mind is Aquinas the rest of their Diuines Now this position is contrary both to Scripture Fathers and to their owne diuinity To Scripture for our Sauiour saith in expresse words Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him But say they The wicked yea the reprobate eate the very flesh and drinke the very bloud of Christ Therefore conclude that they haue eternall life and dwell in Christ and Christ in them neither can they escape by saying that the spirituall eating of Christ by faith and not the eating in the Sacrament is here vnderstood seeing they doe all for the most part interpret this place of the Sacramentall eating and drinking but more plaine if it be possible is that of S. Iohn Ioh. 5. 12. He that hath the Sonne hath life and hee that hath not the Sonne of God hath not life From which place thus a man may reason He that hath Christ hath eternall life but hee that receiueth Christ verily truely as all the wicked do in the Sacrament by their doctrine hath Christ therefore the very reprobate euen Iudas himself hath eternal life is saued for either they must deny that they receiue Christ in the Sacrament or else they must grant being conuicted by these Scriptures that together with him they receiue eternall life 25. They reply to this two things first that the wicked receiue Christ onely Sacramentally and not Spiritually and therefore they haue no benefite by him and secondly because they receiue him vnworthily therefore they receiue their owne iudgement and not saluation not discerning the body and bloud of Christ To which I answere that though they receiue Sacramentally and vnworthily yet by their doctrine they receiue vâ—ry Christ and so by these Scriptures it must needs follow that they also receiue the fruite and effect of his death which is life and saluation Adde hereunto that the termes here vsed are generall both in respect of the persons that receiue and also the manner of receiuing without any such exception or distinction as they deuise and therfore I conclude that it is as impossible to make a separation betwixt Christ and his sauing grace as to separate the Sunne from light fire from heate or the soule from naturall life 26. Thus this position is an opposition to Scripture so it is also to the opinions of the Fathers To giue a taste of some two or three Origen saith That Christ is that true meat which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer which no wicked man can eat Augustine more effectually saith Hee that is in the vnity of Christs body that is a member of Christ he is truely said to eate Christs body and drinke his bloud Note hee saith truely to signifie that all other eate him falsly that is in shew and not in substance And in another place yet more plainely Hee which disagreeth from Christ doth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud though he take the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement Theodoret as plainely saith That Christ is meate for his owne sheepe onely that is his elect And Cyrill that as many as eate his flesh haue life in them being ioyned to him who is life it selfe And Basill saith that they which are fed with the foode of life to wit the bread that came downe from heauen haue an inward mouth of the minde whereby they eate that spirituall food Many more such like sayings might be heaped together to this purpose which for breuity sake I passe ouer all which are contrary to that Romish position that the wicked eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ which they must needs doe if the bread and wine after the words of consecration be changed into the very body and bloud of Christ 27. Lastly it is contrary to their owne diuinity for they hold that the parts of this Sacrament as of all others are two to wit the matter and the forme the forme in this Sacrament is to the whole word of consecration together with the sense thereof the matter is the whole element with the signification thereof As for example in the Eucharist the matter is the species of Bread and wine containing vnder them the body and bloud of Christ and the forme is for this is my bodie this is my bloud Now hence I thus reason The wicked either receiue the whole Sacrament or they receiue it not if they do then there is no difference betwixt the faithfull and them for they receiue no more and why should not they be saued then as well as they if they do not then either they receiue not Christ at all because we are sure they receiue the outward Elements and therfore if any thing be wanting it must needs be the thing signified or there are more parts then these two of the Sacrament Againe thus if the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet not the vertue of Christ then they receiue not the whole Sacrament because the vertue of the Sacrament is in the Sacrament as the vertue of euery thing is in the thing it selfe And so it followeth that the wicked in the Sacrament receiue Christ and yet not Christ the whole Sacrament and yet but a part of the Sacrament and that there are but two parts of it and yet more then two Obserue gentle Reader these contradictions and wonder 28. Againe Transubstantiation is contradicted both by the doctrine of adoration of Images and by the Canon of the Masse by the doctrine of adoration of Images thus they teach that diuine adoration is to be giuen to the pictures of Christ and God the Father because they represent their most excellent and diuine persons and yet they would haue the very body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament transubstantiated because some of the Fathers pretend â—o say that it is to be adored with diuine worship Now if it bee true that they say that Images of God the Father and of Christ our Sauiour ought to be adored with diuine worship because they represent their persons then it must bee false that therfeore the bodie and bloud of Christ are really and carnally in the Sacrament because it is to be worshipped for why may not those mysteries of bread and
with Hierome and Iustine Martyr and when he entred into the house the dores being shut that the dores and walls yeelded vnto him a passage as vnto their Creator with Theodoret and Cyrill and that when hee appeared vnto Paul going to Damascus if it was in the aire or on the earth as it may be doubted that then this body was not in heauen at the same instant for farre bee it from vs so to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens that he cannot be where he pleaseth And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expresse words which Bellarmine as expresly contradicteth 15. Thirdly by discourse of reason hee thus laboureth to reconcile these contradictions and thus disputeth God being but one simple and inuisible essence is in infinite places at once and he might create another world and fill it with his presence and be in two worlds at one instant and the soule of man is wholy in euery part of the body and God is able to conserue the soule in a part that is cut off from the body therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once againe one place may containe two bodies and yet be not two places but one as when Christ rose out of the graue the Sepulchre being shut therefore one body may be in two places at once and yet not two bodies but one Lastly there be many other mysteries of religion as strange and difficult to be conceiued as this and yet are beleeued therefore this also is to be beleeued as well as they 16. A miserable cause sure that needeth such defences the weakenesse of these reasons argueth the feeblenesse of the cause for who knoweth not but that there is no similitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body and that à posse ad esse from may bee to must bee is no good consequence Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies nor euer did except they were so vnited that in respect of place they made but one And lastly that all those mysteries of Religion which he nameth to wit the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection the Creation and Annihilation c. haue their foundation in holy Scripture and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth though transcending the spheare of nature and reason but this strange mysterie of Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture as he himselfe confesseth and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are without better reasons then he bringeth for the defence thereof but like lips like lettuces such as the cause is such are the defences both nought and weake as any man may see that is not muffled with errour and thus this second contradiction remaines irreconciliable 17. A third contradiction is also in and about the Sacrament which is this they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements and partly the thing signified and represented by them and that betwixt these there is a certaine relation and similitude as in Baptisme the outward signe which is water and the thing signified which is the bloud of Christ make the matter of that Sacrament or the outward wasting by water and the inward by the Spirit and the relation is as the water washeth and purgeth away all filthinesse of the body so Christs bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of sinne from the soule and so in the Eucharist the Elements of Bread and Wine together with the bodie and bloud of Christ are the matter of the Sacrament and the relation is as those elements doe feed nourish and strengthen and cheare the bodie of man so the body and bloud of Christ doe seed nourish and strengthen and cheare the soule vnto eternall life and as those elements must be eaten and digested or else they nourish not so Christ must also be eaten and as it were digested and after a sort conuerted into our substance or else he is no food vnto our soules This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome and it is agreeable to the truth for Bellarmine thus speaketh Species illae significant quidem cibum spiritualem sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis that is The signes in the Scrament signifie our spirituall foode but they are not the spirituall foode it selfe And in another place he saith that signum in Sacramento reisignatae similitudinem gerit The signes in the Sacrament doe beare the similitude of the thing signified And in the same Chapter hee sayth more plainely that God would neuer haue ordained one thing to signifie another vnlesse it had a certaine analogie or similitude with it And herein he accordeth with the Master of sentences who defines a Sacrament thus To be a visible forme of an inuisible grace bearing the Image of that grace And with Hugo who saith That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element propounded outwardly to the senses by similitude representing and by institution signifying and by Sanctification containing some inuisible and spirituall grace And that this relation is in eating and nourishing Bellarmine in another place confesseth in direct words when he saith that That same outward eating in the Sacrament doth signifie the inward eating and refreshing of the soule but is not the cause thereof and that that is so necessarie a condition that without it we should not be partakers of that diuine nourishment And to this agreeth Saint Augustine who plainely affirmeth that if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not Sacraments at all And what this similitude is he declareth in another place where hee saith that We receaue visible meate in the Sacrament but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reason why Bread and Wine are the fittest matter of this Sacrament because men most commonly are nourished therewith his words are these As water is assumed in the Sacrament of Baptisme to the vse of spirituall washing because corporall washing is commonly made by water so bread and wine wherewith most commonly men are nourished are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the vse of the spirituall eating By which it followeth that if water did not wash it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptisme so if bread and wine doe not nourish they are no fit signes for the Lords Supper and for this cause our Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament gaue this commandement to his Disciples that they should take and eate and the Apostle calleth it the Lords Supper and the Lords Table 18. This therefore is their own doctrine and it is grounded vpon the truth But listen a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monster Transubstantiation for when they say that the substance of the bread and wine is vtterly
changed into the body and bloud of Christ and that onely the accidents remaine I would faine know of them how these outward signes doe nourish the bodie can the accidents of bread and wine nourish the substance of the bodie must there not be a similitude and proportion betwixt the nourishment and the thing nourished but betwixt accidents and a substance there is no similitude nor proportion Aristotle telleth vs as much when he saith that Foode doth nourish as it is a substance and not as an accident Now if the outward signes doe not nourish the body what analogie is there betwixt them and the things signified or why were they ordayned to represent the spirituall refection of our soules by Christ if they minister no corporall refection vnto our bodies or how can they represent that where of they beare no similitude for as in Baptisme if the nature and substance of the water were taken away and onely accidents did remayne so that it could not wash nor clense the body without doubt it could be no fit signe to signifie the inward ablution of the soule by the bloud of Christ So they that take away the nature and substance of the Bread and Wine and leauâ— bare accidents make it without all question a dead and liuelesse Sacrament not fit to represent so high a mystery 19 Behold now the contradictions first accidents without a substance that is to say accidents and no accidents for therefore they are called accidents because they adhere and are ioyned to a substance in which they haue their subsistance vpon which they haue their dependance so that take away their substance and they presently â—urcease to bee accidents For Aristotle saith Accidentis esse est in esse The essence of an accident is to bee in a subiect Secondly two parts of the Sacraments the visible elements and the inuisible grace yet but one part of the same Sacrament for the elements bee taken away and accidents onely remayne therefore two parts and not two parts Thirdly the externall matter of the Sacrament is the outward elements and yet there are no elements at all and so elements and no elements matter and no matter Fourthly the outward elements are signes of the inward grace and the same by their doctrine being but accidents are signes of the outward elements which are signes of the inward grace and so they are signes of the signes rather then of the thing signified Lastly the outward feeding by bread wine represents the inward feeding by the body and bloud of Christ yet there is no outward feeding by bread and wine because there is no bread and wine except they will make accidents to â—eede a substance which is against all reason for the Philosopher saith that Ex iâ—sdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus wee are nourished by the same things of which we consist but we do not consist of accidents but of substances 20. Out of this snare they seeke to ridde themselues by a double euasion first they say that accidents may be without a subiect though not naturally yet by the supernaturall power of God This is Bellarmines and hee prooueth it by two instances first because Saint Basil affirmeth that That light which was created the first day was without a subiect and secondly because as the substance of Christs humanitie had no subsistance in it selfe but in the word so though an accident naturally doth inhere in a subiect yet supernaturally it may bee and yet not inhere To this I answere first that though Saint Basil be of that opinion yet Saint Augustine is not for he thought it to be a spirituall and no naturall light Nor Beda Lyranâ—s and the master of sentences who supposed it to be a bright and lightsome cloude which was carried about and gaue light vnto the world Nor Damascene who supposed that this light proceeded from the element of fire as an effect thereof Nor yet the Fathers who though they differed in their opinions touching this light yet none of them were of Saint Basils mind to thinke that it was an accident without a subiect Now why should we beleeue Saint Basil herein more then S. Augustine venerable Bede Damascene or the rest This therefore is but one priuate mans opinion crossed by many others and so maketh little for his purpose 21. Secondly I answere that though the humanitie of Christ had no subsistance in it selfe yet by reason of the vnion with the God-head it was sustained and vpholden by it but there is no such vnion betwixt the accidents in the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Christ that the body and bloud of Christ should sustaine and vphold those accidents and therefore they themselues say that they are not sustained by the body of Christ but by the extraordinary power of God and so this instance maketh nothing for this purpose neither Lastly I answere that we are not so much to consider what God can doe by his omnipotent power as what he hath done heretofore or what he hath said hee will doe hereafter let them therefore shew that accidents haue beene without a substance in times past or that God hath said hee will haue them so to be and then wee will yeeld vnto them but till then wee haue more reason to hold conclusions of nature not crossed by religion then to relye vpon supernaturall imaginations 22. The second euasion is by Aquinas who affirmeth that supernaturally the accidents of bread and wine may nourish because they receaue miraculously the strength and vertue of a substance and that they doe nourish he proueth because by the same reason they may be turned into the substance of the body by the which they are turned into ashes wormes and also because wee see by experience that the body is nourished by the signes in the Sacrament to which a short answere will suffice for first that there should be such a miraculous nourishing by accidents hath no ground either in experience or in Scripture And secondly he should rather conclude because the body is nourished by outward elements and they are often conuerted into ashes and wormes therefore they are not bare accidents but substances then that therefore bare accidents may nourish for let the reader iudge whether concludes more reasonably we when we say the elements doe nourish the body therefore they are bodily substances or they that thus reason the elements do nourish the bodie therefore accidents without a substance may nourish and thus the snare is not broken neither are they escaped 23. A fourth contradiction and that about the Sacrament they hold that the wicked and reprobate receaue the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and yet reape no benefit thereby to their owne soules but rather iudgement and damnation as if the merits grace and vertue of Christ could be separated from his person or as if a man could receaue life and yet not
Popes Leo the first Gelasius Gregory the great and Gregory the third doe all directly conclude the same doctrine yea the last of the foure commandeth that euen Lepers if they bee Christians which should not bee admitted to our owne Tables yet should not bee barred from the participation of the body and blood of Christ For schoolmen Durand Biell Caietane doe with one consent auouch that all without exception were to drinke of the cup because God is no respecter of persons and that this custome of communicating with both kindes indured long in the Church And whereas Thomas Aquinas sayth that to auoid irreuerence it is wisely obserued in certaine Churches that the blood should not be receiued of the people but of the Priests onely It is to bee marked first that hee sayth in certaine Churches by which he confesseth that it was not vniuersally receiued in his dayes and secondly that it is wisely obserued by which hee insinuates that before time it was not obserued but indiscreetly neglected 50. Lastly for the Fathers it would bee too tedious to recite all their testimonies onely therefore I referre the Reader to the places quoted in the margent or if he desire to behold at one view all their opinions to Plesseis first booke tenth Chapter of the Masse where he shall finde a whole catalogue of them I will content my selfe with one onely saying of Chrysostome in his eighteenth Homily vpon the first to the Corinthians hee thus writeth Sometime there is no difference betwixt the Priest and the people as to wit at the receiuing of the sacred mysteries for all are admitted to them alike for though in the old Testament it was not lawfull for the people to eat of the same things with the Priests yet the matter is otherwise now for one body and one cup is propounded vnto all This doctrine therefore is an Innouation by the iudgement of all these 51. Transubstantiation commeth in the next place which though they labour tooth and naile to procue to bee of great antiquity yet we haue the testimony of Scotus of Tonstall and of Biell who affirme that before the Councill of Lateran which was in the yeere 1215. Transubstantiation was no doctrine of faith and that it was free for all men till that time to follow their owne coniecture as concerning the manner of of the presence Lumbard also sayth that he is not able to define what manner of conuersion is in the Sacrament and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the name transubstantiation was first found out and brought into the world by the Laterane Councill though hee labour to proue that the thing it selfe was beleeued long before And thus howsoeuer this bastard Babe was borne before yet it is not denyed but that it was then Christened 52. And how long before was it borne I pray you Marry Bellarmine alledgeth two Councils both held at Rome one vnder Nicholas the second the other vnder Gregory the seuenth in both which Berengarius was constrained to abiure his heresie as he calleth it and to subscribe to this article that the bread and wine after consecration are changed into the very body and blood of Christ but concerning the Councill vnder Gregory the seuenth wee haue iust causes to doubt whether there were any such or no first because the acts of it are no where to bee sound and secondly because the same Pope Gregory is reported by Cardinall Benno to haue doubted whether the opinion of Berengarius or of the Church of Rome were more sound And for the other Councill vnder Nicholas the second Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Berengarius was constrained onely to confesse the reall presence and not transubstantiation and so indeed in both of them not the manner of the presence which is transubstantiation but the realty thereof was in question But let it be granted that it was decreed in these two Councils yet the antiquity is not very great for the eldest of them was but in the yeere 1059. 53. As for the opiniō of the Church from the firstage of it vntill these times thogh Bellarmine produceth many testimonies of the Fathers yet either they are counterfeit or little to the purpose or at least wise misapplied vnderstood whereas the testimonies of the same Fathers others produced by vs against this doctrine are so plaine direct and peremptory that by no sound reason they can be auoided I may not ouer-burden the Reader with a repetition of them they may finde thē els-where at large discoursed so that thogh the iust time cannot bee assigned when this errour sprung in the Church yet it is a nouell doctrine borne since the purer times of the Gospell and growing in stature and strength till the Laterane Councill and then taking it name and full perfection 54. Their priuate Masses may be ranked in the next place I meane such priuate Masses wherein the Priest alone doth participate the Sacrament without the people This is a doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome as may appeare both in the Councill of Trent where it is approoued for Catholike and lawfull and in Bellarmine and others which haue their mouthes full of arguments to defend the same but I will not meddle with their arguments onely my taske is to prooue it to bee a nouelty which I may well doe by these three reasons First because it is contrary to our Sauiours first institution Secondly to the writing and practising of the Apostles and thirdly to the example of the Primitiue Church That it is contrary to Christs first institution it is euident because Christ at his last Supper did not take the bread and wine alone his Apostles beholding and looking on and consecrate them and so eat and drinke them himselfe but gaue both the Elements vnto them all and bade them eat and drinke them in remembrance of him this was the first institution of the Sacrament which ought to be a patterne to the Church of God for euer But Bellarmine sayth that it was but an affirmatiue precept of our Sauiour therefore did bind no further then the circumstance of time place and person would permit and that to communicate in the Sacrament was no essentiall part thereof and therefore might bee omitted vpon occasion To which I answere that though it bee false which hee sayth touching communicating in the Sacrament that it is no essentiall part thereof for the contrary may be prooued both by Scripture which calleth the whole Sacrament a Communion 1. Cor. 10. and by analogy of the Passeouer in the Law which was to bee eaten of all by the confession of their owne learned Schooleman Gabriel Piel who sayth that the consecration in the Eucharist is ordained for the vse which is the eating of it as vnto the next end after a sort yet it is sufficient for our purpose that he confesseth that it is a variation from the first institution and therefore
without question an Innouation 55. Secondly that it is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles appeareth by this because the Apostle Saint Paul sometimes calleth the ministration of the Sacrament a breaking of bread and that through housholds By which is necessarily insinuated a distribution and dispensation of it to others besides the Priest Sometimes the communion or communication of the body and blood of Christ Yea the Apostle sayth plainly that wee that are many are one bread and one body because wee are partakers of one bread but if it bee priuate then there is no communion neither are there many and neither is the bread which is made of many graines of corne nor the wine crushed out of many grapes a representation of the mysticall body of Christ as all diuines confesse aswell as of the naturall if there bee no mysticall body that is no Congregation to participate Lastly Chrysostome writing vpon 1. Cor. 11. sayth that this was the fault which the Apostle blameth in the Corinthians because they made that priuate which was the Lords for the Supper of the Lord sayth hee ought to bee common 56. Thirdly what the example of the Primitiue Church was after the Apostles the ancient Lyturgies then in vse doe declare in none of which can wee finde any colour for this practice which euidence caused iudicious Cassander to confesse that solitary Masses are most manifestly confuted by the ancient Greeke Lyturgies and that which hee sayth of the Greeke may bee iustly auerred of all the other ancient missals that were in vse of the Church and are extant in the writings of the Fathers as Chrysostomes Ambroses Gregories and such like yea the Canon of the Romish masse it selfe is against this errour for it is said there As many of vs haue beene partakers and Blesse O Lord these Sacraments to vs which wee haue receiued Now how can this bee said without mockage when there is none present but the Priest 57. But besides those Lyturgies wee haue the plaine testimonies of ancient Fathers one Chrysostome for breuities sake shall stand insteed of all hee thus propoundeth the custome of the Church in his time The dayly oblation sayth he is made in vaine when there is none to participate and again Whosoeuer is not partaker of the mysteries stand by as a foolish and wicked man This is flat contrary to the Romish practice where the Priest masseth alone the people kneele by knocking their brests and lifting vp their eyes to their breaden God you see then there was no such custome in Chrysostomes time and this further may bee confirmed by the tenth Canon of those that are called Apostolicall which doth forbid any to be present but such as doe communicate saying that they are disturbers of the order of the Church the same Canon also is repeated and confirmed in the Councill of Antioch cap. 2. And in the Councill Naxâ—â—tense it is said that it is a ridiculous thing to murmure to the walles that which should belong to the people Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth that it is a more perfect and lawfull Masse where communicants are present then where they are absent so doth Cardinal Humbertus and Walasred all which laide together caused Erasmus and Cassander in expresse words to affirme this practice to bee a nouelty not instituted by Christ nor vsed either in the Apostles times or in the Primitiue Church 58. The next point may bee touching the sacrifice in the Masse for they teach that there is offered vp by the Priest a true reall propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead this is the direct doctrine of the Romish Church canonized in the Councill of Trent which doctrine how true it is I will not dispute onely I am to shew how new it is which may appeare first in that throughout all the new Testament where there is any mentioÌ„ made of the Lords supper there is not one word spoken of a sacrifice for neither doth our Sauiour himselfe say that hee offered a sacrifice when he first instituted it neither doth Saint Paul call it by that name when hee deliuers the full doctrine thereof to the Corinthians neither doth Saint Luke affirme that the Apostles offered a sacrifice when they put it in practice but onely that they broke bread from house to house now if this had beene so essentiall a part of the Eucharist as the Romanists make it yea if it had beene any part at all our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would neuer haue concealed it from the Church 59. If they obiect that though a sacrifice bee not mentioned yet it was acted both because Melchizedek was a type of Christ and he offered bread and wine and also because these words Hoc facite Doe this asmuch as Sacrificate sacrifice I answere that neither did Melchizedek offer bread and wine but brought it foorth onely to the refreshing of Abraham and his fellowers as the Chaldy Paraphrase the Greeke interpretours Iosephus Cyprian and Chrysostome doe interpret the place and the words themselues in the originall doe import neither doth the verbe facere signifie to sacrifice in that place seeing as euery schoole-boy knoweth then it should bee construed with an Ablatiue and not with an Accusatiue case as heere it is and this they themselues doe euidently prooue when they cannot agree among themselues in which action of the Sacrament consisteth the essence and perfection of this sacrifice whether in the eleuation which Sotus thought to belong vnto it or in the consecration as Suares or in the oblation as Ecchius or in the intinction as Canus or in the dispensation and distribution as others or in the consumption as Bellarmine and Ledesima and so they know not where to fixe the center thereof hauing indeed no footing in the whole circle of our Sauiours example 60. And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by Saint Luke it signifieth no more but Sacra administratio the performance of holy duties or the seruing of God in any sort of religious worship as the Fathers doe all interpret the place and not to offer a sacrifice as Erasmus translates it or to say Masse as our Rhemists would interpret it for then the Angels should say Masse in Heauen because they are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. which some of them are not ashamed to say they doe but I beleeue it all alike as I doe that tale in their Legend of Bees singing Masse in their Hyue about the hoste put in by 2 woman to make her swarmes to thriue Againe of the like nature is that fond conclusion of Genebrard who because by the Leuitical Law God coÌ„manded Cakes of new corne to be offered vpoÌ„ the day of Pentecost which is there called A new offering therefore the Apostles sung the first Masse vpon that great day of Pentecost Act. 2. and that Iames being Bishop of Hierusalem was the chiefe
righteousnesse So that wee exclude not from this faith repentance amendment of life new obedience c. Lastly by Ferus Stapulensis Peraldus and diuers others yea almost all of them when at the point of death they come to the point of try all flye to this sacred anchor of Christs righteousnesse alone renouncing all righteousnesse in themselues as the famous example of Stephen Gardiner declareth who lying on his death-bed reposed himselfe on the righteousnesse of Christ only for his saluation and being told that it was contrarie to his former resolution answered that though it was the truth yet that gappe was not to bee opened to the people 48. The Protestants hold that our best workes are stayned with so many imperfections that they cannot merit any thing at Gods hand except it be hell fire and damnation and that though God of his mercie reward good workes with eternall life yet it is not for any condignity that is in them but for Christs sake into whom the partie working is ingrafted and made a member Many learned Romanists are of the same opinion Bellarmine sayth that in regard of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God Waldensis writeth Hee is a sounder Diuine a faithfuller Catholicke and more agreeing to the Scriptures that simply denieth merits and sayth that the Kingdome of Heauen is from the mere grace and will of the giuer not from any desert of the Receiuer Of the same opinion was Albertus Pighius as witnesseth Bellarmine Ferus sayth Whatsoeuer God giueth vs is of grace not of debt If therefore thou desire to hold the grace and fauour of God make no mention of thy merits The same hold Gregorius Ariminensis Durandus Stella with many more renouncing all the new Rhemish doctrine of merits of condignitie taught by the Schoole fourbished ouer by the Councell of Trent and refining Iesuites All these being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome yet being constrained by the conscience of the truth doe as fully and perfectly maintaine our doctrine as if they were the rankest Protestants in the World 49. Protestants denie all free will to grace before it bee quickned and liued by Gods Spirit Many learned Romanists teach the same doctrine Laurentius Valla as Bellarmine reports wished that the name of free-will were vtterly taken away The Master of Sentences auouched that free-will before grace repaire it is pressed ouercome with cōcupiscence hath weaknesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore cannot but sinne damnably Dom. Bannes affirmeth that it is false and worse then false that any man without the speciall and supernaturall helpe of God can be able to doe a supernaturall act Ariminensis calleth the Romish doctrine of free-wil Pelagianisme The Iesuite Suarez sayth that diuers Romanists say that it is a rash and hereticall opinion to affirme that when grace is equally offered to two that one of them could be conuerted and not the other What could any Protestant say more 50. Transubstantiation circumgestation and subtraction of the Cuppe are denyed by many of their owne side as well as by vs. Durand sayth It is great rashnesse to thinke the bodie of Christ by his diuine power cannot bee in the Sacrament vnlesse the bread be conuerted into it and therefore that he holdeth the contrarie onely for the Churches determination So also sayth Scotus There is no Scripture to enforce Transubstantiation except ye bring the Church of Romes exposition Occham sayth that that opinion that the substance of the bread remaineth is subiect to lesse inconueniences and lesse repugnant to reason and holy Scripture The custome of circumgestation of the hoast sayth Cassander may be left with greater profit to the Church if it bee wisely laid downe both because it is but a new inuention as also because it seruethrather for pompous ostentation then for any godly deuotion and so as Albertus Crantzius sayth is contrary to Christs institution Pope Gelasius witnesse Gregorie of Valintia said that the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist doe not lose their nature Touching abstraction of the Cuppe their learned Cassander acknowledgeth that for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christ the people communicated in both kindes and that in Greece and Armenia they doe still and the best Catholickes earnestly desire a reformation of this matter in the Church of Rome And Durand their Schooleman that the receiuing in one kind onely is not a full sacrament all receiuing for though that in the consecrated hoast Christs bloud bee contained yet it is not there sacramentally in that the bread signifieth the bodie and not the bloud and the wine the bloud and not the bodie Of the same mind were Alexander Alensis Albertus magnus Biel with others more this last affirming that in the Apostles times all did receiue the wine aswell as the bread because God is no respecter of persons The second that it is of greater vse and profit to the faithfull and the first that it is a matter of greater merit Thus all these Schoolemen doe protestantize in this point 51. Auricular confession is denied by Protestants to be necessarie for the remission of sinnes and to bee commanded by God The same is auerred by Panormitane Peresius Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus Caietane c. all of them concluding with one voyce that it is a doctrine deriued onely from a positiue Law of the Church and not from the Law of God yea and the last that is named to wit Cardinall Caietane is bold to say that it is so farre from being commanded that euery one should be shriuen before hee come to the Communion that the contrarie is insinuated by the Apostle where hee sayth Let a mantry himselfe And Gratian confesseth that Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers thought that secret confession was not necessarie And lastly Acosta a famous Iesuite auoucheth that it would be well for the Indians if the bond of confession might bee taken away lest they should bee constrained to commit so many and so grieuous sacriledges 52. So the Romish doctrine of satisfactions is vtterly condemned by Protestants and not onely by them but by many of their owne learned Doctours for the Diuines of Louaine as Bellarmine witnesseth of them and others did certainly defend that the sufferings of Saints cannot bee true satisfactions but that our punishments are remitted onely by the personall satisfaction of Christ And Panormitane sayth that a man may be inwardly so penitent and contrite that he shall need no satisfaction at all but may bee absolued presently without any penance doing And another that the treasure of Indulgences doth consist onely of the merits of Christ and not of the satisfactions of Saints because the merits of Christ are of infinite valew 53.
is recorded how the Iewes of Hungarie tooke a Carpenters Son that was a Christian in despiâ—â—â—â— of Christ whom they esteemed no better then the Soone of a Carpenter and cut all the veines of his body and suckt out his bloud with quils and being apprehended and tortured they confessed that they could not bee without Christian bloud for therewithall they anoynted their Priests Yea they haue often poysoned the springs and by that meanes brought great plagues vpon Christian people and set on fire Cities and Townes to bring them to pouerty and misery Can there be greater enemies to Christ then these are for the poysoned arrowes of their malice are shut vp against him who is in heauen beyond their reach and therefore they fall downe vpon his members but the venome of them lighteth vpon their owne heads to their eternall confusion Who would now imitate these wretches in any thing especially in that wherein the cause of their enmity consisteth can they be of God that doe this or rather are they not the brood of that Serpent that hath beene euer a profest enemy to the seed of the woman This being so cleare and manifest I leaue the first proposition without any other guard or defence and come to the confirmation of the second wherein the pith of the argument confisteth 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is an apish imitation of Iudaisine and that in those things wherein it is most opposite to Christ may appeare if wee first consider wherin the opposition of the Iewish Religion consisteth and then secondly compare the Romish with the same The Iewes Religion is opposite to Christ in two respects principally first in retaining the old Ceremonies of Moses law which were shadowes of things to come and had their accomplishment in Christ for that which Paul saith concerning Circumcisiou is to be vnderstood of all other Ceremonies They which entangle themselues with that yoke of bondage vnder those impotent and beggerly rudiments are abolished from Christ and Christ doth profit them nothing And secondly in deuising a multitude of strange and new superstitions coyned in the mint of their Rabbinish conceits contrary not onely to the Gospell of Iesus Christ but euen to their owne law which Deutorologies of theirs our Sauiour condemneth Math. 15. 3. 6. when hee saith that they transgressed the Commaundement of God made it of no effect by their owne tradition Both these wayes shew they their enmity to Christ and Christian Religion and are thereby retained and encouraged in their errours 3. Now compare the Romish Religion with these Rabbinisticall conceits in both respects and it will appeare that one egge is not liker to another nor milke to milke then the Romish and Iewish superstition are to each other And touching the first to begin with the multitude of their ceremonies It is not vnknowne to any that know any thing in the booke of God that the Church of the Iewes was loaden with a heauie burden of ceremonies S. Paul saith that it was so heauie that neither they nor their fathers were able to beare it and therefore calleth the Ceremoniall law a yoke of bondage and those that were vnder that yoke children of the bondwoman and not of the free And the reasons why God did impose vpon them such a number of Ceremonies were iust and holy to wit first because the Church was then in the infancy and therefore needed to be vnder a Schoolemaster to instruct and as it were catechize it vnto Christ and therefore they were to be dealt withall as children vse to be with the guilded leaues and faire pictures of externall rites and to be fed with milke being not able to digest strong meates Secondly because by them they were as it were by visible representations informed both touching some great benesit past and receiued and touching the Messias to come and his Kingdome as also concerning godly conuersation required in their owne life for in the barke of euery legall ceremonie these three vitall spirits were contained And thirdly as it is well obserued by S. Chrysostome in regard of their infirmity and weakenesse who being lately come out of Egypt and there defiled themselues with idolatrie and superstition necessarily required sacrifices and ceremonies to be allowed vnto them lest they should fall backe againe to their Egyptian corruption wherefore Almighty God saith he so dealt with them as a Physician dealeth with his sicke patient who through the burning heat of his disease requireth a cup of cold water or else is ready to hang or kill himselfe there the Physician being constrained by necessity commands a viole of cold water prepared by himselfe to be brought vnto him but withall warnes him that he drinke not but out of that Viole So God granted sacrifices and ceremonies to the sickly Israelites but so that they should not vse any but those which hee appointed for them and that after the manner by him prescribed And this to be so hee proueth because the law of ceremonies was not giuen vntill the children of Israel had defiled themselues with the golden Calfe for the making whereof they were so madde bent as that they pulled off their Iewels eare-rings and rings from their bodies and gaue them for the framing of that Idoll and hee illustrateth the same in another place by another excellent similitude If a man saith hee haue a wife prone to incontinencie hee shutteth her vp in certaine places chambers setting about her a guard of seruants and attendants to keepe her from straying abroad and entertaining her louers So God dealt with the Church of the Iewes which he had married to himselfe in compassion and loue seeing it prone to Idolatry and superstition hee separated it from other Nations and shut it vp within the bounds of the land of Canaan and set about it a guard of Ceremonies and externall Rites which should be as it were Tutors vnto it vntill it were fully confirmed in faith and obedience Thus farre Chrysostome By all which wee see not onely that the Church of the Iewes was loaded with a bundle of ceremonies which were to endure till the comming of the Messias but also the reasons why the Lord imposed that burden vpon them 4. Now is the Church of Rome any whit behinde them in this No verily but farre before them for if we shall compare Moses Leuiticus with the Romish Missals wee shall finde that in number of ceremonies they farre exceede the Synagogue of the Iewes The Iewes had but two great Sacraments the Church of Rome haue seuen The Iewes but one ordinary Altar the Church of Rome tenne thousand euen as many as Churches and not onely so but often diuers Altars in one Church The Iewes offered many sacrifices but the Church of Rome exceede them in the number of their Masses tenne to one The Iewish Holy-dayes were few in comparison of the Romish for they had but their
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
sacrifice for him by saying Masse Who can doubt of Purgatory that is thus authentically proued The second place is in the 8. Psalme 7. Thou hast put all things vnder his feete fowles of the ayre that is say they the Angels in heauen beasts of the field that is the godly in this life and fish of the Sea that is the soules in Purgatory Here is a proofe of Purgatory worthy the noting 28. And thus much for a taste of their false and foolish expositions these being not the hundreth part of them which are found in their writings Let all men iudge now whether these men deale well with the Scriptures or no and whether they be friends or enemies to the sacred word of God the Spirit of God that animateth it that dare thus wretchedly abuse it at their pleasures and wring it like a nose of waxe into any shape to make it serue their purpose Erasmus placeth that Frier in the Ship of fooles that being asked what Text he had in the Scripture for the putting of Heretikes to death produced that of S. Paul Tit. 3. 10. Haereticum hominem post vnam aut alteram admonitionem deuita that is in true construing Shunne an Heretike after the first or second admonition but he construed it thus De vita supple tolle that is Kill an Heretike after c. This fellow by Erasmus opinion was worthy of a Garland or rather of a Cockscomb for his witty exposition and so was he also that being asked where hee found the Virgin Mary in the olde Testament answered In the first of Genesis in this Text Deus vocauit congregationem aquarum Maria. But I must not be so sawcy with Popes and Cardinalls I iudge them not therefore but leaue them to the iudgement of God 29. Their last practice against the Scriptures is their adding to and detracting from it at their pleasure whatsoeuer either distasteth their Pallate or may seeme to make for their profit which notwithstanding hath a wo denounced against it And this practice is grounded vpon a rule Papa potest tollere ius diuinum ex parte non in totum The Pope may take away say they the lawe of God in part but not in whole and if hee may take away then may he adde also for the same reason is of both and one is as lawfull as the other for adding marke their practice the Councill of Trent together with most of the Popish Doctours adde vnto the Canon of the Scripture the Apocrypha Bookes of Iudith Wisedome Tobias Ecclesiasticus Machabees remainders of Ester and Daniel and curse all them that are not of the same minde and yet the Iewes before Christ who were the onely Church of God at that time and Scriniarij Christianorum as Tertullian calls them or depositarij custodes eloquiorum Dei as Tollet the Iesuite names them that is The keepers and treasurers of the holy Scriptures and to whome were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. These Iewes I say neuer admitted of these Books as Canonical and the Fathers for the most part though they held them Bookes profitable for instruction of manners yet dispunged them out of the Canon as not of sufficient authority to proue any poynts of faith as is confessed by Bellarmine himselfe in some sort naming Epiphanius Hilarius Ruffinus and Hierom and by Melchior Canus nominating besides the former Melito Origen Damascene Athanasius accompanied with many other Diuines as he saith and besides the Bookes themselues by many pregnant proofes deriued out of their owne sides doe be wray that they are not of the same spirit the Canonicall Scripture is of 30. Againe they adde to the Scriptures theiâ— Decretals and Traditions Innocentius the third commanded the Canon of the Masse to be held equall to the words of the Gospell and it is in one of their Bookes Inter Canonicas Scripturas decretales Epistolae connumerantur that is The Decretall Epistles are numbred among these Canonicall Scriptures As for Traditions I haue shewed before that it is a decree of the Councill of Trent that they are to be receiued with as great affection of piety and reuerence as the written Word of God Againe they adde vnto the Scripture when they take vpon them to make new articles of faith which haue no ground nor footing in the Scriptures for vnto the twelue articles of the Apostles Creed the Councill of Trent addeth twelue more as may appeare in the Bull of Pius the fourth in that publike profession of the Orthodoxall faith vniformely to be obserued and professed of all And when they adde vnto the two Sacraments ordained by Christ fiue other deuised in the forge of their owne braines and those two also they so sophisticate with their idle and braine-sicke Ceremonies as the Eucharist with eleuation adoration circumgostation and such like trumperie and Baptisme with oyle and spittle and salt and coniuring and crossing c. that they make them rather Pageants to mooue gazing then Sacraments for edifying and thus most wrongfully they adde vnto the Scripture euen what they themselues list 31. As for their detracting and taking away they shew themselues no lesse impudent for they haue taken away the second Commandement as appeareth in diuers of their Catechismes and Masse-bookes because it cutteth the throat of their Idolatry wholly out of the Decalogue and to make vp the number of tenne they diuide the last Commandement into two contrary to all reason and authority Yea so impudent are they that two famous Iesuites Vasques and Azorius doe boldy affirme that this second precept which forbiddeth worshipping of Images was not of the law of nature but onely a positiue Ceremoniall and Temporall Iniunction which was to cease in the time of the Gospell and in the Eucharist whereas Christ ordained the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud in two kindes they notwithstanding depriue the people of the cup and will haue it administred to them but in one kind Yea Cardinall Caietane as Catharinus testifieth of him cut off from the Scripture the last Chapter of S. Marks Gospell some parcels of Saint Luke the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Iames the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn and the Epistle of Iude and yet this mans writings were not disallowed in the church as containing any thing contrary to wholesome doctrine and hee himselfe acknowledged to bee an incomparable Diuine and the learnedst of all his age and thus wee see both the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome against the Scripture 32. To the which if we adde their open blasphemies and horrible reproches wherewith in plaine downe-right blowes they rent and teare in pieces or at least-wise besmeare and defile these holy writings then their malice against them will bee knowne to all men and there will bee no vizard left to maske it withall To conclude therefore some of them
in Christ is not taken away by their vnion in one person but the proprietie of each nature is kept safe Leo one of their Popes Christ hath vnited both natures together by such a league that neither glorification doth consume the inferiour nature nor assumption doth diminish the superiour To these I might adde many more but these are sufficient to prooue that this doctrine touching the truth of Christs humanitie now glorified in the heauens that he hath retained our nature with all the proprieties sinne onely and infirmities excepted is concordant both with holy Scripture and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie 12. Now this doctrine is crossed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs touching Transubstantiation and the carnall and corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for this they teach that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament with the whole magnitude thereof together with a true order and disposition of parts flesh bloud and bone as he was borne liued crucified rose againe and yet they say that the same body in the Eucharist though it hath magnitude and extention and disposition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body neuerthelesse doth not fill a place neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the place which it possesseth here be pregnant and manifest contradictions Christ hath one body and yet many bodies euen as many as there are consecrated hoasts in the world that is it may be a thousand bodies at once and so his body is one and not one at the same time Againe this body is in heauen in a place and the same body at the same instant is on the Altar without being compassed about with place to be in heauen and to be in earth at one instant are contradictory propositions being vnderstoode of finite substances and not of that infinite essence which filleth all places for they imply thus much to be in heauen and net to be in heauen to be in earth and not to be in earth which be the rules of Logicke and Reason the mother of Logicke cannot be together true Againe at one moment of time to be aboue and yet below to bee remooued farre off and yet bee neere adioyning to come to one place and yet not to depart from another are so meerely opposite to each other that they cannot be reconciled And lastly a body to haue forme magnitude extention and disposition of parts and yet not with these to fill a place is as much as to say it is a body and yet not a bodie it is in a place and yet not in that very same place these are contradictions so euident that it is impossible for the wit of man to reconcile them 13. Notwithstanding the aduocates of the Romish Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske and by many arguments endeauour to reunite these oppositions first by Gods omnipotency secondly by the qualities of a glorified body and thirdly by arguments from the discourse of reason From hence they thus argue All things are possible to God and therefore this is possible neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God saue these things Quae facere non est facere sed deficere as Bellarmine speaketh that is which to doe is not to doe but to vndoe and doe argue rather impotency then potency of which sort that one body should be in many places at once is not saith he because it is not in expresse words excepted in Scripture as to lye and to denye himselfe are To this I answere first that albeit the Scripture doth not expresly except this from Gods omnipotency to make one body to bee in two places at once yet implyedly it doth for it denyeth power or rather weaknesse to God to doe those things which imply contradiction of which kinde this is for one body to be in many places at once And Bellarmine himselfe saith that this is a first principle in the light of nature euery thing is or is not which being taken away all knowledge faileth Secondly I answere that the power of God is not so much to be considered as his will nor what he can doe but what he hath reucaled in his word that hee will doe for if wee argue from his power to the effect Wee may deuise God saith Tertullian to doe any thing because he could doe it And therefore the same Authour saith Dei posse velle est Dei nonposse nolle God can of stones raise vp Children vnto Abraham saith Iohn Baptist Now if any should hence conclude that any of Abrahams children were made of stones in a proper speech all would thinke him to haue no more wit then a stone And to this accordeth Theodoret when hee saith That God can doe all things which hee will but God will not doe any of these things which are not agreeable to his nature But for to make a body to be without quantity and a quantity to be without dimension and dimension without a place that is as much to say a body without a body and quantity without quantity and a place without a place is contrary to Gods nature and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will and so hath no correspondence with his power And lastly I answere that it is no good reason to say God can doe such a thing therefore he doth it but rather thus God will doe such a thing therefore he can doe it and thus the Scripture teacheth vs to reason Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did hee in heauen and in earth and not whatsoeuer hee could doe but whatsouer it pleased him to do and the Leper said to our Sauiour Christ Master if thou wilt thou canst make me cleane no◠if thou canst thou wilt but if thou wilt thou canst 14. Secondly whereas they obiect that Christs bodie after his glorification is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body by reason of that super-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others and thereby as he came to his Apostles the dores being shut and rose out of his graue notwithstanding the stone that lay vpō it and appeared vnto Paul on earth being at the same time in heauen so he is in the Eucharist after a strange and miraculous manner and yet is in heauen at the same time I answere first with Theodoret that Christs bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature but remaineth a true bodie filled with diuine glory And with Augustine that Christ gaue vnto his flesh immortality but tooke not away nature and in another place That though Christ had a spirituall body after his resurrection yet it was a true bodie because he said to his Disciples Palpate videte feele and see and as his body was then after his resurrection so it is now being in the heauens Secondly that when hee came out of the graue the Angell remoued the stone
Sacrament is really changed into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood if this be true 12. Againe to proue their doctrine of concomitance that is that whole Christ is vnder both formes of the Sacrament Bellarmine produceth examples out of Surius Vincentius and Alexander Aleusis where miraculously out of the bread being broken blood plentifully flowed to the view of the beholders which if they were true as may very wel be doubted yet euince not that doctrine for those miracles might be wroght rather for the coÌ„uictioÌ„ of profane irreligious receiuers confirmation of Christian Religion against all enemies therof whether Infidels or Heretikes then for the proof of the reall presence or coÌ„comitance of both parts of the Sacrament vnder one signe but that they were not true wee haue iust cause to suspect seeing the eldest of those miracles are litle aboue a hundred yere old at what time true miracles were vtterly ceased in the Church falseones were foisted into their roomes as witnesseth Lyranus who sayth that the people in his time were notably deceiued by false miracles forged by Priests and their complices for gaine and Canus who affirmeth that writers in his time forged many things of purpose and suggested false miracles to pamper the peoples humor and to gaine credit to Religion and in that respect taxeth diuerse graue authors for their pronenesse in satisfying the peoples appetite and Agrippa who sayth that the writers of histories making godly lies did counterfeit Reliques frame miracles and deuise terrible fables let these goe then amongst the rest for at least suspected if not conuinced falshoods 13. Further for the proofe of their Canonization and inuocation of Saints it is a wonder to see how many wonders they haue deuised For to omit that which Cardinall Baronius reports as a truth out of Guillerinus and Vincentius touching Saint Fulbert that because he was a most deuout worshipper of the Virgin Mary therefore shee came vnto him in his sicknesse and gaue him her brests to sucke as also how shee came to Saint Bernard in his sicknesse to visit him accompanied with Saint Lawrence and Saint Benedict and to omit how Saint Dominick caused the Deuill to hold the Candle â—o him till it burnt his fingers which Canus brandes with the stampe of a ridiculous fable and how Saint Dunstone pulled the Deuill by the nose or by the lip as some other say with a paire of Pincers which beeing as ridiculous as the former yet is allowed by the Iesuit Delrio for truth to omit also how their Saint Francis had the fiue wounds of Christ printed in his flesh by an Angell with the nailes sticking therein and continually bleeding till his dying day that hee vsed to ride in the aire in a fiery chariot talking with Christ and Mary and Iohn and accompanied with innumerable Angels and that the birds would heare him preach with great deuotion and a wolfe was conuerted by him whom he called brother wolfe and ledde him about with him in his iourney as also to omit how Saint Denis had his head stroken off and after carried iâ— two miles in his hands the like to which is written of Iustinian the Monke Saint Othisa Saint Fulcian and Saint Victorice and how Saint Nicholas in his infancy lying in his cradle of himselfe faiâ—ed Wednesdayes and Frydayes and would not take suck and how Saint ` Patrick caused a stollen sheepe to bleat in the belly of him that had eaten it and how Saint Bede preached to the stones and they answered his prayer and said Amen venerable Bede 14. To omit I say all these and many more as beeing ordinary and common tales in euery mans mouth I will onely commend vnto the Readers admiration some few more rare and yet no whit lesse strange as for example a Parrate being like to bee surprized by a hauke flying ouer the shrine of Saint Thomas of Canterbury cryed miraculously Saint Thomas helpe moe and presently the hawke fell downe dead and the Parrat escaped so the famous Virgin of Lauretto when as a certaine man was on the ladder ready to bee hanged being accused falsely for purloyning his masters hawke assoone as hee did but thinke of her in his heart and desire her helpe the hawke came foorth with iâ—ngling in the aire and houering ouer his head and at last light vpon the gallowes and so freed the poore man from the halter Saint Christophers staffe beeing pitched into the ground began presently to beare leaues whereupon eight thousand men were conuerted to the faith of Christ A Nunne called Beatrix running away with her Paramour liued certaine yeeres in a publike brothel-house but because shee was a deuout worshipper of our Lady our Lady her selfe supplied her roome in the Nunnerie and was taken for Beatrix all the time of her absence Saint Christines tongue was cut out of her head and yet shâ—e spake notwithstanding and her brests beeing cut insteed of blood milke issued Saint Brice beeing accused to bee the father of a base childe caused the said child being but thirty dayes old to speake and confesse that Brice was not his father the same also is said to carry hote coales in his bosome without burning his flesh or clothes Saint Aidus espying eight wolues that were sore hungry gaue them eight lambes of meere compassion which afterwards by prayer bee obtained lafe and found out of the wolues bellies Saint Adrian beeing called vpon by a boy that was beaten the Masters hand was stayd in the aire so that hee could no more touch him 15. What should I tell you of Saint Patrick that droue with his staffe all the venemous beasts out of Ireland or of Saint Roch who beeing sicke of the pestilence in a wood was fed by a hound that brought him euery day bread from his masters table or of Saint Lupe or Low who shut vp the Deuil in a tankard all night that came to tempt him so that he howled and brayed most hideously and in the morning the holy man let him out or of Saint Dunston whose Harpe hanging on the wall sounded melodiously without touching this Antheme Gaudent in coelis animae sanctorum and of Saint Martin who beeing saying Masse a tongue of fire came and sate vpon him as it did vpon the Apostles or of Saint Germaine who comming to the sepulchre of one of his disciples beeing a good while dead asked him how hee fared and if he would no longer goe with him to whom the other answered and said that hee was well and that all things were to him soft and sweet and that hee would no more come hither or of Saint Barbara who turned the sheepe of a certaine sheepheard that bewraied her to her father that sought for her into locusts But if you would haue a lye with a latchet looke into the Legend of the Annunciation of our
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all
somewhat longer let the Reader beare with mee for so the nature and nouelty of the matter requireth Their next practice then to defend their Church and Religion is by grosse and palpable lying and falshood yea so grosse and palpable that any ciuill honest man would blush to be reputed the author of such fables which they obtrude vpon silly people as verities necessary to bee beleeued and which they like simple creatures giue faith vnto asmuch as vnto the Gospell it selfe and neither is the one or the other any maruaile seeing Saint Paul prophesied long agoe that on the one side Antichrist his comming should be according to the efficacy of Sathan in all power in lying signes and wonders and on the other that God would send vpon them that receiued not the loue of the truth strong delusion that they should beleeue lyes so that by this prophecy one of the chiefest props of Antichrists kingdome must bee lyes and therefore the Church of Rome making no conscience thereof sheweth it selfe to be no better then the Synagogue of Antichrist If they say that they doe it to a good end namely to maintaine the truth I answere with Iob Nunquid Deus indiget mendacio vestro vt pro illo loquamini dolos Doth GOD stand in need of your lye that you should speake deceitfully for his cause no he will surely reprooue you for it and with Saint Augustine Cum humilitatis causa mentiris si non eras peccator antequam mentireris mentiendo efficieris quod euitaras that is If thou tellest a lye for humility sake or for the truths sake if thou were not a sinner before by lying thou art made that which thou didst auoid what can bee more pithily spoken for the reproofe of these men who by falshood pretend to establish the truth and by lying to vphold their Religion and if neither the Scripture nor this holy Father are regarded by them then let them heare the censure of the Heathen Cicero who concludeth that in virum bonum non cadit mentiri emolumenti sui causa It falleth not to a good man to lye no not for his owne profite sake what are they then in his account who make a common practice to lye for their aduantage But lest I should bee thought to accuse them falsely and in reproouing their lying to fall into the same vice my selfe let vs take a short view of some of their notorious vntâ—uths which are sparsed in their bookes And heere to omit their lying Reuelations lying priuiledges false Canons forged donations counterfeit de lying martyrologies all which are stuffed with notorious falsities and that by the confession of their owne Doctours I will insist onely vpon their lying miracles wherein they vaunt themselues as a marke of their Church and wherewith they labour to vphold most of their erronious opinions 11. And first touching their miraculous transubstantiatioÌ„ and adoration of the Sacrament not finding in Scripture sufficient proofe for it it is strange to see how many monstrous miracles they haue deuised for to win credit thereunto Bozius a man of great fame amongst them telleth vs these three tales first that Anthony of Padua caused his horse to kneele downe and worship the holy hoast by which strange sight a stout Heretike was conuerted to the true faith And secondly Saint Francis had a Cade Lambe which vsed to goe to Masse and would duely kneele downe at the eleuation and adore And thirdly that a certaine deuout woman to cure her Bees of the murren and to make them fruitfull put a consecrated hoast into the Hiue which when after a time shee tooke vp shee not onely found a miraculous increase but saw also a strange wonder the Bees had built a Chappell in the Hiue with an Altar and windowes and doores and a steeple with Bells and had laid the hoast vpon the Altar and with a heauenly noyse flew about it and sung at their Canonicall houres and kept watch by night as Monkes vse to doe in their Cloisters Who would not beleeue now but that the hoast is to be adored if hee be not more senslesse then a horse or a Bee or a Cade Lambe But if this be true why are Mice so prophane that they dare rend it with their teeth And why doth not the Popes Hackney kneele downe and doe reuerence vnto it when hee carrieth it on his backe accompanied with muletters and horse-keepers and Courtisans and Cookes with sumpter-horses and all the baggage of the Court as oft as his Holinesse is to trauell abroad when hee himselfe followeth mouÌ„ted vpon a goodly white palfrey accoÌ„panied with Cardinals Primates Bishops Potentats Is more honor to be giuen to Christs Vicar then to Christ himselfe Or was Anthonies horse more religious then all the Popes horses yea then the Pope himselfe and all his traine And if the hoast bee so soueraigne a preseruatiue for Bees why doe any good housewiues suffer their Bees to perish seeing they may haue the hoast for God amercy or at least wise for a very small price In the booke of the conformities of Saint Francis wee finde this miracle On a time Fryer Francis saying Masse found a Spider in the Chalice which hee would not for reuerence to the Sacrament cast out but drunke it vp with the blood afterward rubbing his thigh and scratching where it itched the Spider came whole out of his thigh without any harme to either O strange miracle and yet not so strange as this that Christs bloud in the Chalice should poyson Pope Victor except Francis a Fryer were more holy then Victor a Pope or the blood in one Chalice were of greater force then in the other but peraduenture the Priest in the one had no intention to turne the wine into blood as the Priest in the other had and then wee know there can be no conuersion but no maruaile if this be true seeing in the festiual of Corpus Christi day we read as great a wonder as this to wit of a Priest that hauing lost the hoast in a wood as hee came to housell a woman that was sicke and hauing whipt himselfe for his negligence went backe to seeke his Lord God and at last spying a pillar of fire that reached from the earth to heauen ran thereunto and found Gods body at the foot of that pillar and all the beasts of the forrest about it kneeling on their foure knees and adoring it with great deuotion ex ept one blacke horse which kneeled but on one knee and that blacke horse sayth the story was a fiend of hell who had turned himselfe into that shape that men might steale him and bee hanged as many had beene This as it was reported to bee done not far from Exbridge in Deuon-shire so it was as solemnely read in the Church and as verily beleeued as any miracle that euer Christ wrought who can doubt now but that the bread in the