matter of faith as other men do if in examination it happen to be an error yet shal it be none in the Pope but must be one in al men else For trial of this let any man read the 1. 2. chapt de sanct beat where he proueth it an error vpon whom soeuer shall thinke that the soules of the blessed doe not see God vntill the last day Bellar. de Sanctor beatit l. 1 c. 1. 2 This error is put vpon Iohn 22. Bellarmine confesseth as much Ioannem hunc reverâ sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem That Iohn 22. did verily beleeue Bell. de Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14. fol 549. c. 12. fol. 531. he saueth Pope Nicholas by the like that the soules see not God vntil the last day But this he thought saith he when he might so thinke without danger of heresie nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesiae definitio for there had no determinatioÌ„ of the church gone before Why The determinatioÌ„ of himselfe is the determination of the church aswel as you said before his telling of a thing to himselfe was the telling of it to the church And why excuseth he the Pope by the not determination of the Church When hee telleth vs himselfe De conc auth l. 2. c. 2 5. That neither generall counsels nor particular which otherwise are subiect to erre can erre if the Pope confirme them And yet see the man be telleth vs De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14 f. 551 that Iohn need not to reuoke the error cum in errorem nullum incidisset for he fel into no error If hee fel into no error neither did they fal into any error on whoÌ„ Bellarmine laieth the same error nor must he cal it an error to say The soules of the righteous see not God vntil the last day seeing he himselfe saith that Iohn so held and yet held no error FroÌ„ absurd and grosse coÌ„clusions they fal to flat blasphemies Rom. 6.23 Rhem annot on that Text. Blasphemies ContradictioÌ„s The reward of sin is death but everlasting life is the gift of God saith S. Paul the Rhemists say in their annotations that The sequele of the speech required that as he said deathor damnation is the stipend of sin so life everlasting is the stipend of iustice so it is What indignity is this to the holy Ghost to crosse him so manifestly S. Paule maketh opposition betweene eternal life eternal death touching the cause of either The proper working cause of death is sin so saith the Apostie The reward wages or stipend of sin is death but everlasting life is what the stipende of good workes as the Rhemists say no but the free gift of God The Apostle might as easilie haue said so as they if it had bin so Annot 2. Cor. 5. vers 10. Wil Reinolds cont Whiâ—…k fol. 105â— Why did S. Paule invert and turne the sentence if as the one had deserued hel so the other had deserued heaven but only to exclude what the Rhemists bring in They iterate this in an other place where they say Heaven is as well the reward of good works as hell is the stipend of ill workes This is also seconded by one from Rhemes who saith that the Apostle Saint Paule laieth in indifferent ballance good works and euil maketh the one the cause of heauen as the other is the cause of hel But if it be so that good works be the cause purchase merit of eternall life as these men tell vs as trulie as euill works are the purchase and merit of hel what saie they to their owne note Rhem. Annot. Rom c 9. v. 11. 16. vpon another text where they tel vs that by the example of the two two twinns Iacoh Esaw it is euident that nether nations nor particular persons bee elected eternallie or called temporallie or preferred to Gods fauour before other by their owne merits but of theÌ„ two vvhere iustlie hee might haue reprobated both hee saued of mercie one What is this as S Paul said before eternal life is the gift of God excluding merits Yet they stand not alwaie to this last For they saie againe Man hath free will to make himselfe a vessell of saluation or damnation Rhem. Annot 2. Tim. 2. v. 21. though saluation be attributed to gods mercy principally the other to his iust iudgment Hâ—w hath man free wil to make himselfe a vessel of saluation or damnation wheÌ„ saluation is principallie of Gods mercie and the other of his iudgment Whie explaine they not that darke speech that wee maie vnderstand it Interpres eget interprete They neede more Interpreters then the text They told vs before that Gods meere mercie is seene in the elect and iustice in the reprobat And that they that are saued Annot. Rhem. Rom 9. v. 6.11 14. 16. must hold of gods eternal purpose mercy and election And this election and mercy dependeth on his owne purpose will determination that all are worthie of damnation before they bee first called to mercie Make good this doctrine which they haue last set downe and agreed vpon the former will proue blasphemous and deregatorie to the mâ—iestie of God That good workes are the cause of beauen as evill are the cause of hell Or that man hath free will to make himself a vessell of saluation or damnation I doubt not if the Rhemists be followed but that a man might take vp moe contradictions then those before which they haue heaped amongst their notes in that testament 2. Tim 2.25 God giueth repentance Where S. Paul writing to Tymothy willeth him to instruct with meeknesse those that resist or vvithstand the truth prouing if at anie time God will giue them repentance that they maie acknowledge the truth they note That conversion from sin and heresie is the gift of god and of his special grace Annot. vppon that place in the margent pag. 589. I might aske them first how this agreeth with their owne note one the other side of their owne leafe so oft mentioned before Man hath free wil to make him selfe a vessel of saluation or damnation But I wil leaue that now and demand of them howe it agreeth with this The grace of god woorketh not in man against his will nor forceth anie thing without his acceptation and consent Annot. 2. cor 6. v. 1. Annot. Ioh. 6. v. 44. Annot Luc. 14. v. 23. Conuersion from sin heresie is the gift of God For whosoeuer are lead by the spirit of God Rhem. Rom. 8. v 14. in marg Hee meaneth not that the children of god be violently compelled against their wills but that they bee sweetly dâ—awn moued or induced to doe good ex Aug. Ench c. 64. de verbis domin Serm. 43. c 7 deverb Apost ser 13. c. 11 1â— Acts â— and therfore it lieth in a mans will to
the manner of doing because it is vnbloudy it is in the remembrance of it A real presence they and you are sure of but what Christ did at his last supper to force that real presence none of you know What he tooke what he blessed what he brake what he gaue whereof he spake wheÌ„ he said Take eate this is my body that you know not nor are ever able with al the wits you haue to explane In the Popes supremacie you do the like no man amongst you whatsoeuer is able to determine whether he claime his superioritie and rule iure divino by Gods Law yea or no because some of you say yea and some no or whether he may called vniversall bishop Stapleton denieth it Bellarmine alloweth it which shall we beleeue So that refusing our bookes if you wil but read your owne you shal content me Reade them fift them compare them if not with ours yet one with an other try whither I be an Impostor or if you finde them constant plaine and sincere follow theÌ„ on Gods name I wil neuer perswade you otherwise but if you perceiue them inconstant intricate and darke so that you vnderstand not their meaning think they may deceiue you thinke that their words in conference are more cunningly placed then their arguments are in disputation when they are driven to proue in the one they saie to you what they please and in the other they must proue what they can I do freely protest vnto you I impute not this to the disability of the men if they had a right cause in hand they could easily make it good but as Lactantius saide of Tully Lact. li. 2. c. 10 Haec non est Ciceronis culpa sed secta This is not Ciceroes fault but the sects whereof he was so that your Masters can bring their matters to no better passe in discourse is not their fault but the fault of the cause they haue in hand if it could bee done they could doe it And the same Lactantius noteth of the Heathen Lib. 2. c. 1. although in the course of their liues they would never acknowledge the only God or the God of the Christians But saith he if any necessity vrged them if any pestilence annoyed them tunc deum recordantur then they remember God ad Deum confugiunt they fly to God à Deo petitur auxilium they pray helpe at Gods hand Deus vt subveâ—iat oratur thee desire that God would succour them so is it with our aduersaries towards vs they beleeue vs not in the matter of the sacrament they detest our supper the presence we make Christ to haue Equidem statuere noÌ„ possum doleÌ„dum ne potius an ridendum puteÌ„ cum videâ—… graves doctos vt sibi videntur sapientes viros in tam miserandis errorum fluctibus volutari Lact. lib. 1 c 18. But come to discourse presse them hard with argument hold theÌ„ to it they fly their owne very words vse ours ours I say wherwith we expresse our mindes and cannot say any thing for themselues if they borrow not our language as by the discourse following shal be seene Pause vpon this and demand what they meane I caÌ„not determine whether I should more pittie them or laugh at them when I see such zealous men in their cause as they seeme to be so deeply pluÌ„ged in such miserable quavemires For neuer yet did I read any of your books but in on point or other there was disagreement froÌ„ others of the same side or the author contrarie to himselfe or adding or subtracting from the text which he medled with or in some answere or defence so grosse and childish that a weak maÌ„ might haue ouerthrowen him Or absolutly wheÌ„ the matter came to the vpshot said noe other then that which we haue said I wil not bee found in this impudently to belie anie of your writers with more then is to bee found in the verie pages of their bookes as your men deale by vs but what I laie vpon theÌ„ be ye sure there to finde it And although the whol course of this booke doe goe against you and your teachers in this kinde yet wil I giue here a tast of their dealing beefore hand which I purposly kept for this place because I would not heape vp al I could saie at once but sparse and let them fall here some there some the better to profit B. Iuells chaleng art 2. Hard. against the Bishop art 2. fol. 55. 56. One of the Articles wherof Bishop Juell contended with D Harding was that the Holie Communion for the space of 600. yeares after Christ was neuer ministred opeÌ„ly in the Church vnto the people vnder one kinde which is bread the cupp being takeÌ„ from them In discussing of which point D Harding graunteth that it was ministred in both kinds at Corinth as appeareth by S Paul and in sundrie other places saith he as wee finde most evidently in the writings of diuers ancient fathers Stapleton confesseth as much Retorne of vntruthes art 2. fol. 44. b. that S Paul and the primitiue Church vsed so to doe longe and manie yeares What is this but to grant the whole question so grow froÌ„ that which they tooke vpon them to iustifie For if S. Paul the primitiue Church vsed to minister it in both kinds longe and manie yeares together what is this but to saie as B. Iuell said The communion better theÌ„ the priuate Masse Hard. art 1. fol. 39. b the communion was neuer ministred openly to the people in one kinde for the space of 600. years after Christ The like doth D. Harding confesse for the priuate Masse for which he disputeth to iustifie the preists sole receauing Marie J denie not saith hee but that it were more commendable and more godly on the Churches part if many well disposed examined would be partakers of the blessed sacrament with the priest but though the clergie be worthilie blamed for negligence herein through which the people maie be thought to haue growen to this slacknesse and indeuotion yet notwithstanding this part of the Catholike religion remaineth sound and faultlesse Againe whether I can shew that a masse was said without companie present to receaue with the Priest that said it or no what skilleth it such particularities and specialties of a matter of fact were verie seldome recorded by writers of the first 600. yeares The priuate masse is now become a matter of small waight yet you saie the people receaue spiritually wheÌ„ they looke on receaue nothing Reioynder fol 210. This is more then a matter of smal waight as you said euen nowe by this the preists priuate masse makes the people haue a true communion Hard. art 1 fol. 28. Dor. art 4. fol. 97. Hard. cont Iuell art 1. fol. 34 b. for a priuat masse art 2. fo 64. for an haâ— communion Saund. de visib monar l. 7. fol.
frustrate or to followe the motion of god And this The father draweth vs and teacheth vs to come to his sonne and beleiue these high and hard mysteries not compelling or violently forcing any against their will or without any respect of their consent but by the sweet internall motions and perswasions of his grace and spirit hee vvholie maketh vs of our owne will and liking to consent to the same And in another place most plainlie The vehement perswasion that god vseth both externally by force of his word miracles and internally by his grace to bringe vs vnto him is called compelling not that he forceth any to come to him against their wils but that hee can alter and mollifie an hard hart make him willing that before would not How these notes agree al men maie see if conuersion from sin heresie bee the gifts of God and of his speciall grace and that hee wholie maketh vs of our owne will and liking to consent and that hee doth alter and mollifie an hard harte and maketh him willing that before woulde not I woulde knowe vvhat free wil man hath to vvish his own conuersion vvhich is a supernaturall thing before Gods grace and illumination come Can it concurre vvith a thing which is not A wil to wish our conversioÌ„ is not there before grace come nether heth it in man to frustrate the grace of God vvhen hee doth effectuallie call vs as appeareth by S Paul called in the Acts Againe if it he in mans power to frustrate or follow the motion of God how is conuersion from sinne and heresie the gift of God which they saie also So that as the two first notes do oppugne each other so doe the two last also ioining fairely with the doctrine of the Church of England in one maine point of controversie which is Free will To say that God altereth and mollifieth an hard hart maketh him willing that before would not is to say That God maketh vs then willing being otherwise by nature vnwilling Perkins Treatise of mans freewill and Gods free grace fol. 102. De gratia lib. arbit l. 6. c. 15. fol. 557. and so he regenerateth vs not against our wils but with our wils yet so as the willingnesse to be regenerate is not of vs but of God If they wil stand to their own notes they may subscribe to this of ours Bellar mine will come to vs himselfe rather theÌ„ we shall be alone in this question of our conversion and free will Conuersio homines addeum vt etiam quodlibet aliud opus pium quatenus opus à libero arbitrio est tantuÌ„ non tamen secluso auxilio generali quatenus pium à SOLA GRATIA est quatenus opus pium à libero arbitreo est gratiaÌ„ The conversion of man vnto God saith he as every other godly worke so farre forth as it is a worke is only of free wil not excluding Gods general helpe so farre forth as it is Godlie it is ONLIE of Grace and so farre forth as it is a Godlie vvorke The good that is in the worke is of grace it is of Free will and Grace together For the efficient cause of everie action of man as it is an action is from the will of man as it is free it is by the freedome of the vvill as it is Godlie it is by the good seede and sufficient helpe for that seed Further Grace only doth make that the action or deed of man be godly and supernatural which nature with al his strength can never reach vnto What is this but our assertion and the overthrow of himselfe and his fellows in this question We never denied a natural power in man simply to wil this or that but to wil that is good Petrus Baro super Ionam Thes 1. fo 326 ex Aug. we hold it a worke of grace only as Bellarmine here confesseth Liberè agere est humanae naturae it a cum ratione coniunctum vt ab ea non separetur liberè agendo malum eligere est corruptae naturae bonum vero eligere est gratiae saith a great protestant out of S. Augustine Freely to do a thing is of the natural power in man and so ioined to his reason that it cannot be separated from it in this free choice to chuse a thing that is naught is the corruptnesse of nature but to chuse the good is of grace Bellarmine in one place complaineth that Pighius De grat lib. arb l. 1 c. 3. f. 50. See the same in Rey. admonit ad lecto in li de Rom. Eccle Idolol q. 3 In very manie things Bellarmine is a protestant or at the least not a Papist Doctor Doue in his book of recusancy De iustific l. 5. cap. 7 fol 424. It is the safest way to trust to the alone mercy of God otherwise a great Catholike went away froÌ„ that side in some questioÌ„s because he addicted himselfe to read Calvins works and I doubt me when Bellarmine shal be called hence they wil say of him he was too nere a protestant For besides that before in the great question of Merite thus he writeth Propter incertitudâ—…eÌ„ propriae iustitiae periculum inauis gloriae tutissi mumest fiduciam totam in sola â—es miserisordia benignitate reponere In respect saith he of the incertainty of our own righteousnesse and for feare of vaine glory It is the safest way to place al our trust and hope in the alone goodnes and mercy of God He seeth wel the weaknes of his cause for which he striveth otherwise he would never haue come to the truth so freely howsoeuer in the expounding of his meaning in those words which are plaine enough and need no exposition he would faine marre them againel For he would yet haue vs beleeue that our workes are vera iustitia very righteousnesse and that they can abide the iudgement of God and may be relyed vpon which if it were so where is the defect which causeth theÌ„ to fly to his alone mercy God is not vniust if their works wil abide his trial let them claime their due of desert without mercy or fauor For to him that worketh is the reward not reakoned of grace but of duty saith S. Paule Rom. 4.4 De iustific l. 5. c. 16. fol. 463. 2. Tim 4.8 Againe discoursing against his ancient brother Durand touching that text of S. Paule which the iust iudge shal gine vnto me at that day he saith that to speake absolutely man caÌ„not exact or require any thing of God since all that we haue is his gift yet taking in as it were the wil of God and his promise in that he wil not exact our works of vs for nothing but vvil render a reward according to the proportion of the workes we may exact a reward of him and therefore saith he the works of the righteous remoto pacto velpromissione Ibid. fol 465. setting his
covenant and promise aside are not worthy of eternal life Gods mercy and promise is then his best stake howsoeuer sometimes he would pul it vp To make our workes truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of euerlasting life What they say of good works Rhem. 2. Tim. 4 v 8. Ieam c. 2 v. 22. What they say of good works and more principal causes in the matter of iustification then faith to make them the cause of heauen as ill deeds are the cause of hel To say that we may trust vnto them that they are true righteousnesse and that they are able to abide the iudgment of God And yet to say that it is of his free mercie and liberality that either he promised any such reward to our works and that the works of themselues are his none of ours and that when he crowneth our works he crowneth his owne gifts that he rewardeth them aboue our desert and al this in respect of his free promise and graunt are the words of men that are disposed to play their parts on a stage and when they are out of their parts to imagin some God to come downe amongst them to keepe their credit with the people for their tenor and breefe of all their talke is we haue truely and properlie deserued heauen because of his free bountie mercie he first promised and then gaue it vs. Stapleton after much debating of this questiòn De vniuets iustif doct lib. 10 c. 7. fol. 361. God is to himself not not to vs. commeth in the end to this That debter whensoeuer we doe read in the ancient fathers that god is debter vnto vs in the great gift of eternal life It must be vnderstood as debter to himselfe and in respect of his owne promises and that hee is not debter vnto vs to himselfe not to vs for his own promises not for the worthines of vs or our woorks If this suffice them wee will stand to it God is iust saiâ— we in that he keepeth promise and doth not deceaue his of that reward Whitak cont Gul. Reynold fol. 58. which they hope for but the promise is free for freely he promised and freely hee giueth yet in that hee bound himself vnto vs by his free promise it was iust that he should performe the same not that wee haue iustly and worthilie deserued any part of that reward but because it is meete that God be alwaies faithfull in his words And so make him if debter to any theÌ„ to himselfe as Stapleton speaketh The Crowne is the reward which God hath promised to the worke not because the worke is vvorthie of it but because it pleased him so graciously and liberaly to bestowe such excellent rewards vpoÌ„ vs that haue deserued so little and so keep in with the promise and couenant and exact nothing of him because al are his as Bellarmine a voucheth Cui redderet coronam iustus iudex si noÌ„ donasset gratiaÌ„ misericors pater quomodo eslet ista corona iustitiae nisi pra cessisset gratia quae iustificat impium Augde gra lib. arb c. 6. â—nnot 2. Tim. 4. v. 8. And when he crowneth vs he crowneth his owne gifts not our workes giuing before what he repaieth after For how should hee repay as a iust iudge vnlesse he had first giuen as a merciful father how should this be a crowne of iustice if grace had not gon before which iustifieth the vngodly man as saie the Rhemists Of these notes and the rest in this whole booke following I would haue you that are seduced to demand of your teachers what they thinke praying them to reveiwe reexamine them and for your parts to marke how they answere defend their opinioÌ„s but see with your own eies trust not theirs Thinke that the verie debating of these questions vvhich they cannot chuse but handle hath drawen such confessioÌ„s from them settle your selues but once to compare their reasons First with the holie scripture then with the ancient fathers of the primitiue time and lastly by the protestant writers of this age in the Church of England and then iudge where the truth is you wil then sone perceiue I wil speake of one for all that noe man can more fully contradict Bellarmine then Bellarmine doth himselfe Nec enim poterit ab vilo Cicero quam Cicerohe vehemen ius resutari l 2. c. 9. fol. 148 Cicer pro domo sua post medium Staplet in the fortresse f. 5. b as Lactantius said of Tully If he or anie of them or al of them bee growen in your opinious great it is but the elemeÌ„ts of your sloth that wil not giue you leaue to looke on him Calamitas huius temporiss lan dem viri propagauit The miserie of this time wherin pusillanimity so much reigneth in your mindes hath gotten him the praise he hath and not the cause he handleth for looke into that and you vvill bee ashamed both of it and him Wee all iumpe in this As noe building standeth without a sure and substantial foundation so noe life no saluation is to be hoped for vvithout a right and true faith Let vs therfore look whom vve trust and what vve beleue Sireligio tollitur vulla nobis ratio cum coelo est Lactant l 3 〈◊〉 10. away religion fol. 224. Take and we haue noe societie with heauen Non hic nobis labor Invtilis ad pernitiem sed vtili ad salutem Aug ep 111. The Iewes could tel that the golden calfe which they worshiped was not God yet were they idolaters and the heathen did not thinke did not thinke that those thinges which they made with their hands to be Gods c. and yet were they grosse Idolaters A quibus si persuasionis eius rationem requiras nuilam possint reddere sed ad maio rum iudicia coÌ„fugiant quod alli sapientes fuerint illi pro bauerint illi scierint quid esset optimum seque ipsos seÌ„sibus spoliant ratione abdicant dum alienis erroribus jeredunt Lact 5. c. 20. the labour therof is not vnprofitable leading vs to destruction but profitable bringing to salvation Beleiue not them that woulde drawe you from knowledge Knowe that they abuse you that saie the scriptures are not for you to read and al to keepe you in ignorance because you shal not see what they say or doe Take you heed of them that teach you worshiping of Images praying to Saints that plead their pardons their purgatorie noe one sillable in Gods booke sounding anie waie to either of them I knowe they haue excuses that you doe it not to the image but to the thinge represented which excuse besides that it is the same that the Iewes and all Idolaters that vvere heathen could make for themselues it is a moÌ„strous vntruth in it selfe They know there be amongst them who haue written in defence of the vvorshiping of the imag of the Crosse and trinitie
disable the whol masse as though it were lesse worth that Christ should offer himselfe were it but by the hand of a minister The third of Bellarmines reasons is drawen froÌ„ the will of Christ For saith he although Christ could obtaine by one oblation of this vnbloody sacrifice offered ether by himselfe or by his minister whatsoeuer he would for whomsoeuer yet would he nether aske nor obtaine of God any thing but that by euery oblation in the masse there should be applyed a certaine fruit of his passion All the application in the Gospell nowe of Christs sacrifice commoÌ„ both to Preist and people is that of the Apostle Let vs drawe neere with a true hart in assurance of faith Heb. 10. v. 22. Bellar. de miss l. 1. c. 25. f 748. H 9.17,20 The Lord supper or Eucharist is this testament or seal of Godes promise exhibited to vs. The matter testamentary or which is testified is the sacâ—ifice of Christs death as Christ saith this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood Missa non est noua testameÌ„ti Christi institutio sed est repetitio illius eius dem Ib c 25. f. 740. Neque vnquam repetitur ib. c. 4. l. 2. fol. 776. ether for remission of sinnes or obtaining other benefites which in this life we want Thus haue wee the ful of Bellarmines reasons to proue that the value and strength of the sacrifice of the masse is finite wheras hee confesseth the sacrifice of the Crosse was infinite so that by his owne grant the difference betweene them is as between finite infinite which is disproportioÌ„ enough whervpon wee may safly conclude the Masse is not the sacrifice of Christ And thus hath Bellarmine like an other Hercules cleÌ„sed Augeus stable of a number of filth For would he would bringe not three but three skore reasons to proue that the sacrifice of the Masse is inferiour to that on the Crosse hee should willingly be heard I wil follow Bellarmine in on note more about his masse and so giue an ende to this part Wee obiect the confirmation of a Testament dependeth on the death of the Testator therfore the confirming of Christs testament dependeth on his death Or thus Where a sacrifice is the testament is confirmed but where a testament is there is death therfore the masse is a new testament yea there are so many testaments as there be masses Christ must so ofteÌ„ die as there be masses to ratifie establish them Bellarmine answereth that the masse is not a new feting forth of the testament of Christ or is not a new testament but a repetition of his owne which he did confirmed by his death so a little before hee called the masse an iteration of the oblation of Christ Thus is Bellarmine content to make his masse a repetition and iteration of Christs sacrifice which a while after hee will not allow For as before is rehearsed out of him speaking of the sacrifice of the crosse he saith it is only one caÌ„not be repeated So saith Gardiner very confidently That Christs sacrifice was and is perfect without necessitie of iteration If Bellarmine will stand to this that his masse is but a repetition and iteration of Christs testament it may very wel bee demanded where the Rhemists wil finde their masse or sacrifice done daily vnbloodily Annot. Heb. c. 10. v. 11. that was once downe bloodily made by the same Preist Christ Iesus though by his ministers hands not many hosts as those of the old law were but the very selfe same in number euen Christs owne body that was crucified Tub. I haue obserued you with attention in your discourse wherin you haue shewed the diuersities of handlinge one and the same thinge It seemeth they cannot tell themselues what they woulde say if you haue laid downe their wordes rightly without falsification For in this of the masse they teach the offering vp of the sonne of God to his father which assertion had need because it is a matter of the greatest waight to be strongly confirmed by holy scripture They teach a true sacrifice a perfect reall but when they come to confirme that which first they lay downe they speake of the formes of bread and wine destroying the truth of Christs naturall body They make it bloody and vnbloody They knowe not howe farre the Preist worketh in it nor whether they were best to say it is the same that Christ did Articles subscribed vnto by the Church of EnglaÌ„d art 31. Redemption act 20.28 Rom. 5.6 Gal. 3.13 1. Cor. 6.28 1. Pet 1,18 Propitiation Act. 10.43 RoÌ„ 3.25 Heb. 9.12.28 1. Iohn 2.2 1. Ioh 4.10 Satisfaction Io. 1.29 1 Pet. 3.18 1 Io. 1.7 Gardiner Saunders Hardinge Their discourses herein are me thinketh vnprofitable and vncomfortable Rom. Vnprofitable and vncomfortable said you you neuer iudged righter in all your life For where the offeringe of Christ once made on the crosse is that perfect redemptioÌ„ propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both original actual there being noe other sacrifice for sinn but that alone they in stead of that brought in sacrifices of Masses wherein they offer Christ for the quick dead to haue remission of paine guilt haue handled the proof as before is set downe wherby you may obserue the boldnes impudencie of them in defence liking of their cause who are not any whit a hashed to bid the readers sift try and examine waigh without partiallity their reasons and arguments and then to iudge which who soeuer doth shal assuredly finde noe sincere dealing on their parts but shifts cauills and base trigiuersations a sufficient proofe wherof is gone before and more shal now presently followe in continuing their seueral declarations of the maner of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament which I hindred before in discoursing so largly of their sacrifice which I did reserue to this place because we are to examine the force of every word in the institution of the Lords supper and their manner of contriuing them for their purpose The senteÌ„ce of holy scripture by which they wold proue both their sacrifices reall presence in this The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament Mat. 26.26,27 Marc. 14.22 Luc. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.23.24 When they were eating Jesus when he had taken the bread and giuen thankes hee brake it gaue it to the disciples said take yee eate yee this is my body And when he had taken the cup giuen thankes he gaue it them saying drinke yee all of it for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes By this narration of the Euangelist you see both what Christ did and said at his last supper He tooke he blessed he brake he gaue and said Take eate this is my body Doe this in remembraÌ„ce of me Now I aske you this question what
he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
and so accompt him for his friend or else to heare the proclamation of open warre and so finde him as his deadly foe The letters he sent were to this effect There remaine with me Athanasius and Paulus who as I am credibly giuē to vnderstand are persecuted for godlinesse sake The letters of constance to his brother Constantius If thou wilt promise me to restore them to their seates to punish severely such as haue iniured them I wil send the parties themselues vnto thee But if thou wilt not accomplish these things as I require I will that thou knowe that I will come thither and whether thou wilt or no restore them to their seats Constantius vnderstanding this assembled many of the Easterne bishops and demanded of them what were best to be done They did not cōclud thus vp on the Bishop of Romes letters In fine epistolae lulij Romani episcop ad clerum populum Alexandrinum They answere it were farre better to restore Athanasius than to raise deadly and mortal warre Wherefore the Emperor restored Athanasius Paulus Marcellus Asclepas and Lucius every one to his bishoprick againe so that by the Emperours edict they all receiued their own seas the citties were commanded to entertaine them with willing cheerful mindes Thus much briefly out of Socrates concerning the troubles which befel on Athanasius the rest of the Catholike bishops What Sozomene reporteth which is all the shew that Bellarmine hath of this matter Sozomene of the same matter l. 3. c. 7. His reports of this same matter shal as breeflly follow as the rest is gone before In his third booke seauenth Chap. he mētioneth the same matter that Socrates did in his second book eleuenth Chap. That is the flight of Athanasias others from Alexandria and other places to Rome Iulius his writing letters in their behalfe which he calleth his restoring of thē euen as in an other place he saith they deposed Pope Iulius who yet was not deposed Their answering of Julius letters rethorically and ironically telling him withal that although Rome from the beginning had bin famous and the Metropolies for religion godlines tamē authores religionis Christianae primū Christian religiō came first out of the east ex Oriēte eò veaeissēt yet the authors foūders of the christiā religiō came first out of the East thither that Iulius in doing that which he did had brokē the laws of the church in medling with those that they had dealt against In the meane time new accusations were coined vnto Constantius which Iulius vnderstanding thought it not safe for Athanasius to like in Egipt but sent for him to Rome Cap. 8. 9. And wrote againe to the bishops of the East who met at Antioche replying to the letters and found fault with them that contrary to the faith of the Nicene counsel they had vndertaken new matters and contrary to the lawes of the church they had not called him to the counsel For saith he there is a law belonging to the honor of Priesthood which taketh those acts for voide which are enacted without the consent of the bishop of Rome the matter commeth to this issue Cap. 19. He is the issue of what Iulius could doe He brought the matter into the Emperour hand when Iulius saw that those things for which he wrote tooke none effect causam Athanasij Pault ad Constantem retulit hee bringeth the cause of Athanasius and Paulus vnto the Emperour Constans who did write vnto his brother both for the sending of Athanasius his accusers vnto him with request in that manner as before you did heare to see them restored himselfe The conclusion of Sozomens history concerning Athanasius and the rest is the same that Socrates before mētioned was Sozom. l. 3. cap. vlt. thus Athanasius returned from the West vnto Egipt so did Paulus Marcellus Asclepas Lucius recover their Episcopall seates for by the Emperours letters they also had libertie to returne to their owne home There is a third historiographer who is very plentifull in reporting the troubles that befel on these bishops Theod. eccles histe l. 2. cap. 5. and of Athanasius comming vnto Constans the Westerne Emperour and his putting the Prince in minde of his fathers Acts and of the great Councel of Nice which his father had called then instantly got the Emperour to write vnto his brother Constantius wherin he warneth him to keepe inviolably the inheritance of his fathers faith Constantius moued with these letters appointed a Counsel to be held at Sardice willed the bishops aswel of the East as the West to be their present Whereby it is plaine stil that as the Emperour restored them in the end so had they power to call and summon the councels and to appoint any meane which they thought fit for the due hearing of the matter till their owne full sentence came And this is so plaine that Sanders in his visible monarchy saith Magnus Athanasius nihil dubitauit Constantis Imperatoris Catholics sidem atque opem contra Constantij Caesaris vim ac perfidiā implorare L. 2 c. 4. fol. 82. ex Theod. eccles lib. 2. c 5. Athanasius the great doubted not to craue and implore the trust and help of the catholike Emperour Constans against the force trecherie of the Emperour Constantius Now let the whole world iudge betweene our adversaries vs which of vs twaine haue more right vnto this question of restoring of Athanasius and the other Bishops The history is plaine Iulius authority was to weake to performe what he thought to haue compassed and therfore hee appealed to the Emperour who indeed did strike the stroake 1. 2. 3. 4. Thus is Bellarmines Fowre fold proofe proued to bee single sold and poore and yet is not this his case alone but of others before him 5. Hard. art 4. cont Iuell fol. 111. b. 117 b Hardings 6. Dormā cōt Iuell fol 64 b. Dorman 7. Pighius eccles hier lib. 4. fol. 269. Pighius 8. Cope dial 1. fol. 55. Cope 9. Staplet returne of vntruths against M Iuell art 4. fol 29. Stapleton all of them ioining in one to suppresse the truth all of them alleadging the storie falsely and deceiptfully as though it had bin done by Iulius which was only effected by the Emperour And where in the processe of this tragedie touching Athanasius I haue opened indeed of purpose because the adversaries should not cauill that Iulius alleadged a law in he honor of Preisthood which ordained that those acts should be void which were made without the consent of the bishop of Rome which may seeme at the first sight to make only for his authoritie and soueraignty excluding all others It may please them that shal so thinke to vnderstand withall that over the bishops of Christendome there were constituted appointed foure Patriarches of Rome Constantinople Antioche and