thou see wine doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe God forbid Thinke not so For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing aboundeth euen so heere thinke the mysteries to bee consumed by the substance of the body In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish transubstantiation For although they doe teach that the substance of the bread is perished yet the accidentes they teach still to remaine and euer they say that Christ is present in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine But when waxe is cast into the fire there is not so much as a shew that there hath beene waxe but all is consumed Therefore this similitude maketh not for transubstantiation And in trueth whosoeuer shall reade that whole sermon shall easily perceiue that Chrysost there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the people so to be affected when they come vnto the holy sacrament that their eie shoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures but their minde altogetherr exercised in heauenly cogitations according saith he vnto the promise that you made vnto the Priest when as hee saide Lift vp your mindes and hearts and you answered I haue it lifted vp vnto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vnto vs in an other place that especially in these holie mysteries Chrysost in Math. hom 83 wee shoulde not onely beholde that which is before our eyes but especially remember his wordes But it were too tedious to answere euery place particularly that they doe alleadge and out of this which is already spoken it is easie to answere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or sixe hundred yeares But if any man wil aske why our sauiour Christ doth giue vnto the bread the name of his Bodie and to the wine the name of his Blood And why the fathers doe so call these outward signes the bodie and blood of our sauiour Christ I will answere with Theodoret an ancient father Dial. 1. Immutabilâ—â— Hee would haue them that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are seene but in respect of the change of the name to beleeue the change that is made through grace As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the first of them was more than a thousand yeeres after Christ whereby it may appeare how late this doctrine is whereupon Scotus a schooleman doeth confesse that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the councel of Lateran although Bellarmine reproue him for it Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it so many absurdities is darkened with so many doubtes hath no warrant in the Scriptures no ground in the ancient fathers and is not to be accounted as an article of faith euen by the confession of them that speake of the greatest antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares since let vs take heed of them who crie continually Antiquitie Antiquitie and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuises of their owne and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith deliuered by Christ and his apostles and sincerely preserued many hundred yeeres in the church of God But of this because it is one of the speciall points of doctrine wherein we dissent I haue stoode longer That the wicked receiue not in the Sacrament Christs bodie and blood CHAP. 14 THE PROTESTANTS BEcause that whosoeuer hath eaten the sonne hath the sonne for hee is meate that perisheth not Ioh. 6.50 and he that hath the sonne hath life 1. Ioh. 5.22 And on the contrary De ciuit Dei lib. 21. ca. 25 De consecra dist 2. vt quid paras ex Augustino as saint Augustine saith He can not eate Christs body that is not in his body Lastly seeing he can not be torn with the teeth but must be receiued by faith wee therefore teach that although the wicked may be partakers of the visible signes yet they can not be said to eate or receiue the body and blood of our sauiour Christ And with Saint Augustine In Ioh. tract 59 that they may eate as Iudas did the Lords bread against the Lord but the bread the Lorde they can not eate which doctrine is most plaine and bringeth with it no absurdities or doubts THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. forgetting that the Sacrament consisteth of twoo things that is to say the materiall breade and that which came down from heauen which is Christ do adde vnto these a third namely Bellarm. de Euchar. li. 1 cap. 23 the effect of the body of Christ or his spirituall graces making thereby a separation and as it were a diuorce betweene the bodie of Christ which they teach the wicked may receiue and those graces which can not in deede bee separated from the same and cannot be giuen to the vngodly Whereby they do wrap themselues in such a cloud of doubts as all the Papists in the world wil neuer be able to answer M. Bilsoâ— part 4. whilest some say that this body goeth no further than to the teeth some allowe it to haue passage but to the stomake but not to abide there some to continue there also yea some say that it goeth as other meate into the belly yet remaineth stil Christs body so long as the forme of the bread remaineth yea and that it may be voided either vpward or downward and receiued of man or beast Although this vnreconcileable difference that is among them in so materiall a point of their religion namely what is becom of the body of Christ after the wicked haue receiued the same and these filthy blasphemies and detestable shifts that they are driuen vnto for defence of their heresie be a sufficient confutation both of that doctrine of transubstantiation from whence doe spring all these filthie pudles and sinckes and also of this other that the wicked may eate the body of Christ which is but a sowre grape of that vnkindely roote yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant I will by Gods assistance take a short view of their arguments whereby they indeuour to proue that the most wicked men may eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ Now their chiefe and almost onely proofe is taken from transubstantiation of the vntrueth of which doctrine I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the former chapter And now therefore that I may conclude that if the wicked can not eate the body of Christ vnlesse the bread be changed into the bodie as themselues will confesse then because there is no such change therefore the wicked eate not his body But one shew of an argument they make out of the scriptures 1. Cor. 11.27 29 He
that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthily is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord and after eateth and drinketh iudgement vnto himselfe making no difference of the Lordes bodie Out of which place they reason to this effect The wicked or vnworthy receiuers can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord vnlesse they receiue it But they are guiltie of them and receiue iudgement to themselues therby Therefore they receiue the bodie and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true for saint Paul saith it But the first is most false For although the wicked can not be neither are partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ yet because they come not to the sacrament which was instituted of God to offer and assure vs of the heauenly graces with such reuerence as they ought to do and in such sincerity as behoueth them therefore are they accounted and that woorthily to despise the things themselues that are represented by those visible signes And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ they shewed their contempt of the thing signified thereby And therfore S. Ambrose Ambrose saith euen vpon these words Because it is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in mystery S. Hierome Hierome yeeldeth the reason why he is guiltie of the body blood of Christ Because he hath accounted as vile the Sacrament marke his wordes of so great a mysterie Not therefore are they guiltie because they eate Christ but because saith hee they despise the Sacrament of so great a mysterie And Theophilact Theophilact vppon these wordes saieth Hee that receiueth it vnwoorthily shall bee no lesse guiltie of wickednesse than if hee shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see that Theophilact doth compare the vnworthy receiuing of the holie sacrament with the shedding of Christes blood and so maketh them two diuerse things And therefore in his iudgement it is not all one to receiue the Sacrament and to receiue Christ So that by these places it appeareth that the wicked may bee guiltie of the body and blood of Christ which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed vp vnto the faithfull and yet not receiue the body and blood of Christ Yet by the way I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him doeth falsifie his wordes And therefore where the Apostle saith hee that eateth of this bread and drinketh of the Lordes cup vnworthily he saith Hee that eateth the Lordes body Orthod ex pli lib. 7. and drinketh of his blood But it is no great fault in poperie to abvse the Scriptures and to adde to them or take from them as they thinke good Wee see therefore that this cleane meate is for cleane men this holy banquet is for holy guests as they had wont to crie For De benedict patriaâ— ch c. â— as saint Ambrose saith This bread is the foode but of the godlie And why because Our abiding in him Cypr. de coâ—na Domini is our eating of him and our drinking of him is our incorporating into him our seruices being subiected our willes conioyned and our affections vnited to him Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certaine earnestnesse and desire to abide in him Which things to be in the vngodly the Papists will in no wise affirme Many testimonies might be alleaged but with one shift they thinke to answer all The answer of the Papists Christ his body and blood say they may be receiued of the wicked but not the fruit or effect thereof And may Christ be receiued of any and they not to liue by him Confutation of it Can he that is full of all grace and power be at any time as it were robbed of the same God forbid For if they wil speake of his conuersing among the Iewes and of his being among many whilest he was vpon earth that got no good thereby the reason thereof is plaine it was because they receiued him not Ioh. 3.19 20. But to say that any may receiue him and is not partaker of his graces and benefites is most expresly against the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall liue through me They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Sauiour Christ than to say that any can receiue him and yet not be partakers of his heauenly graces So that whilest they take vpon them the defence of the wicked in some sort they set themselues euen wilfully to reproch the holy one of Israel But if it should be granted to them that the wicked may eate Christ how or when wil they agree what shall be done with that body blood of Christ that they so eate For themselues deny that the soules of the wicked are norished by him And that their bodies should by his body be norished is too absurd What then becommeth of his body and blood which they say the wicked receiue To answer this question resolutely and definitiuely they haue not yet agreed they neuer will they neuer can Therefore vntill they can answere directly to such inconueniences as of necessitie follow the doctrine that they teach let vs beleeue that Christ is the foode of the faithfull onely because none other but they do receiue him Let vs not heare them who in the sacraments which should be and are indeede most plaine and easie teach vs wholy to looke for miracles as doe the Papists For Christ is present by miracle and absent by miracle if they say true And so when all learning and scriptures faile then they perswade vs that we must seeke for a wonder and so make them that will giue credite to them in these their grosse deuises the wonders of the world for their folly But enough of this That the Cup ought not to be denied vnto the lay people which thing the Papists do CHAP. 15. THE PROTESTANTS BEcause it is needeful for the nourishment of our bodies to haue not meate onely to satisfie our hunger but drinke also to quench our thirst in And that Christ would represent vnto vs in his Sacrament the perfect nourishment of our souls wherevnto nothing could be added because that nothing should be wanting For this cause did our Sauiour Christ institute his sacrament of these two partes of our nourishment and gaue as well the one of them as the other vnto his Apostles Commanding them also aswel to take drinke of the cup as to eate of the bread And the Church also did practise this more than a thousand yeeres But of late the councel of Constance Anno 1415. Sess 13. did forbid it and commaund the Sacrament to be receiued but in one kinde THE PAPISTS SO that the church of Rome not regarding the expresse commandement of our Sauiour Christ neither the practise of
is as strong as the second and is this Breaking cannot be spoken wel of the bodie and in this place which is broken for you cannot be true of the bread for the bread is not broken for vs therefore it must be vnderstoode of Christs bodie in forme of bread In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar translation which somtime he and his fellowes doe highly extoll for that saith which shal be deliuered And so doe Chrysostome Ierome Primatius Theophilact yea and Thomas of Aquine also al of them expounding these very words Epist 3 And Cyprian in his second booke of Epistles and so doe our English Remists translate it likewise Al whose translations do sufficiently proue that they espied not any such mysterie in that worde is broken but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true sence of it shal be deliuered to signifie that the body of Christ should suffer the torments vpon the crosse which S. Paul did expresse by the word of breaking And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine who woulde faine haue the Eucharist to be a sacrifice say it is a Representatiue sacrifice of Christs passiō 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. by which passion hee gaue his body to death for vs. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representatiue sacrifice read and peruse who so will the words of the institution it will not be found that our Sauiour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the vse of the sacrament which then he instituted As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speake of the shedding of the cup not of the bloud Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28 Mar. 14.24 make the matter more plaine and tell vs that the bloud of Christ is shed Doth not this wringing wresting of scriptures to force them from their true and natural sence to serue their turne manifestly argue that it must needs bee a weake tottering building that is raysed vpon so bad foundations and that it is but for want of better proofe that they are faine to scrape togither such poore helps The second argument of M. Bellarmines to proue a sacrifice by the institution is this in effect Christs body bloud are receiued in the Eucharist therefore they cannot but be sacrificed Which argumēt for vs to deny it is sufficient seeing that M. Bellarmine himselfe seemeth to inforce this only against them that confesse a real presence in with vnder the bread and yet deny the sacrifice But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties wherof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist M. Bellar. can finde them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests who are willed to sacrifice in these words if ye wil trust Bellar. Do this Who would euer haue gathered thus that had eies to looke vpon the words of the institution You must Doe this ergo you must sacrifice Yea Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter to be half ashamed of this argument and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius because they say that with the papists in that place those words To do is to sacrifice and therfore it needeth no farther answer But for the act of sacrifising it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out neither knoweth he howe to distinguish betweene that act I meane the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he and other actions in the supper And yet master Bellarmine is sure that such a thing there is there but where to finde it he cannot tell Is this thinke you good dealing for them that should be good guides vnto others to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themselues The words for a sacrament are very plaine but if you would follow with a bloud-hound you can neuer finde a sacrifice out of those wordes As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers they shall haue this answere The Eucharist is in sundry respectes called a sacrifice A sacrifice of the fathers not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of praiers and thankes giuings and duties of loue but also and that especially because it is a memoriall of the true sacrifice which Christ offered for vs vpon the crosse Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which we deny not but that it is a sacrifice properly so called which the papists affirme but cannot proue Argument 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no answer for it is so weak that euery child may see the fault of it For out of those wordes Act. 13.2 As they ministred vnto the Lord speaking of Paul Barnabas others ministring seemeth to be or may be taken for sacrifycing ergo it is takē there for sacrifycing saith M. Bellar. Iudas seemed to be a true seruant of Christ but was not Lib. 1. de M◠ssa ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to say such a thing may be therfore it is so Argument 8 Rhem. Test De missa li. 1 cap. 14 But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinths which the Papists make their strong bulwarke maister Bellarmine findeth three arguments His first argument is this Euerie altar which in deed is an altar is builded for offering of sacrifices But the Lords table after a sort is an altar therefore it is for offering of sacrifices We will not striue with master Bellarmine much for this point for we will confesse that such sacrifices are offered vpon the altar as maister Bellarmine confesseth the altar to be The Lordes table saith he is a kinde of altar or an altar after a sort So we say that sacrifices after a sort namely spirituall sacrifices are offered thereupon His second reason out of this place is a lowde lie For thus hee saith For the Apostle speaketh plainly that we that are faithfull doe so receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord at the table of the Lord as the Iewes their sacrifices or the Gentiles their meates offered to Idols on their altars or tables And because hee cannot proue this to bee true you must trust him of his owne worde for he bringeth no proofe at all Let the indifferent reader peruse the place and marke his false dealing with it The wordes cited by him begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter and continue vnto the 22. the summe whereof is this as they that consider the place may see As by participating at the Lords table you are made partakers of Christ and ioyned togither amongst your selues in one bodie verse 16 17 so by participating at the table of Idols you are made partakers of them and ioyned in fellowship with the Idolaters But that which he telleth vs is so plaine in these wordes cannot be gathered out of them And this
bread I trust then it will not bee anie heresie for mee to expounde nature the properties of the bread seeing doctor Chadsey a catholike doth it We see then that this vnanswerable argument that he made so great account of and bragged that it could neuer be answered is long since fully answered by one of his owne friends he knew not of it Ciril is his fift witnes not that learned father that was bishop of Alexandrie but another that was B. of Ierusalē Ciril Ierus cathec Mistagog 4 whose books are but lately set forth by thēselues that now bring him in for a witnes therfore we may doubt whether he be wel delt wtal Out of him he aledgeth 3. places He once turned water into wine shal he not be worthy to be trusted that he turned wine into bloud Beholde here sayth maister Bellarmine a reall change And why so I knowe he will answere because it was so in the water for it was really changed into wine and therfore also saint Iohn Iohn 2 11 who reporteth the storie saith it was a myracle Now to change wine into bloud is as great a miracle and therefore it is likely that if there had bin any such miracle wrought some or other would haue noted it for a miracle seeing so many haue spokē of that matter namely three Euangelists and S. Paul Master Bell. knoweth that the fathers vse many times to speake verie hyperbolically and to amplify with excessiue speaches the matters that they would set forth as here this Ciril doth yet we must not gather thereof such a real change in the wine as I haue said was in the water but this is spoken to win that at our hands that he in that place moueth vs vnto that we should not thinke the sacramentall wine to bee but bare wine His second witnesse for maister Bellarmine is after in that place Vnder the forme of bread the bodie is giuen and in forme of wine the bloud Wherupon maister Bellarmine againe insulteth thus Behold the accidents of bread which remaine We grant it but not the accidents or shew of bread only but the substance also and that he hath not yet denied therefore let vs see his third place Knowe this for a certaintie that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though thy tast perceiue it to be bread In deed hee speaketh here farre otherwise than the auncient fathers doe in that hee sayeth It is not bread For there is not one of the fathers for at the least six hundred yeeres after Christ that euer spake so but this man onely And therefore howsoeuer he amplifieth the matter in wordes to bring vnto the holy Sacraments due regarde which the fathers at those times vpon great causes did much endeuour Catec Mist 3 yet he is not to be thought to haue meant otherwise than that hee sayd before that it is no more common bread For although if they regarde but the taste they shall finde no change yet that sacrament is an authenticall seale of our faith which assureth vs that Christ is spiritually giuen vnto vs. And thus much briefly of these authorities that men may see that they are not so very plaine that infallible arguments may be gathered out of them But now I must needes speake somewhat of the Author And first for the Booke it selfe Lib. Eccles hist ◠ca. 23. out of which these places are alleaged it seemeth to me that saint Hierome hath somewhat burnt it in the eare when he saith that hee wrote it when hee was but a yong man noting thereby perchance his yong and slender iudgement And of himselfe Ruffinus saith Lib. 2. ca. 40 That hee did change sometime in faith and in Communion often And Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall history saith of him that being summoned to answere some accusations that were laid against him he fearing to come to his triall for two yeares together appeared not and therefore was deposed What reason then that wee should be content to stand to his triall for matters in question that was himselfe afraide to be tried by the learned men of his time Or that hee who was deposed from his seate by them that best knew him yea and that as it seemeth by Ruffinus his saying of him for some heresie should now sit as Iudge yea or else be allowed as witnes in so weighty matters As for saint Ambrose De iis qui initiantur mist cap. 9. whom next he alleageth he maketh not against vs. He saith indeede that the bread is that which Nature hath formed but that Blessing hath hallowed Which is nothing else but that which hath beene answered before that it is not common bread but as Theodoret saith Theod. Immutabili◠dialog 1. the Nature not being changed to Nature is Grace added And that this is S. Ambrose his meaning is most plaine not only by that which he afterwardes saith in that very chapter Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes an other thing is named after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified but also most euidently in his bookes of the Sacraments Lib. 4. cap. 4. where speaking of the change that is in these visible signes hee vseth these wordes If there bee so great vertue in the worde of the Lorde Iesus that the thinges that were not beganne to bee how much rather can it worke that they the visible signes in the Sacrament bee that which they were and be changed into an other thing By which hee can meane no other but a sacramentall change because hee flatly affirmeth that these signes are that which they were The first place that hee alleageth out of Chrysost is this It is he that doth sanctifie these things the outward elements and change them In Matth. Hom. 83. but that hee speaketh of a sacramental change only his owne wordes a litle before in that place do prooue For in teaching how that by these sensible creatures he deliuereth vnto vs things not sensible hee bringeth his example of Baptisme wherein I know they wil not say the water is transubstantiated And yet Chrysostome maketh no difference betweene it and the sacrament of Christes body and blood but that in them both in like sort by sensible creatures insensible graces are deliuered But most plainely in an other place doeth he confute that which the Papists woulde force out of these wordes namely the change of the substance of the bread saying Before the bread is sanctified Ad Caesarium monachum wee call it bread but the diuine grace hauing sanctified it by the Priest it is freeed from the name of bread and is vouched worthy of the name of the Lordes body although the nature of the bread abide in it Whereby wee see the change that hee speaketh of is in the vse not in the substance of the bread In the latter place Chrysostome saieth thus Doest thou see bread De Euchar. in encaenus doest
Gods Church much more then a thousand yeeres after Christ neither that fulnes of comfort that wee learne by the bread wine that Christ is vnto vs both meate and drinke that is the perfect and sufficient foode of our hungry and thirstie soules haue robbed the lay people of the one halfe of the Lordes supper proclaming thereby vnto the world that they are disobedient against Christes commaundement iniurious to his people and that in steede of the continuall and auncient practise of the Primitiue Church they establish their owne new deuise Lo what cause haue they to bragge of their ancient faith And for the vpholding of this their doing against both Trueth and Antiquitie they bring some reasons Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester in his booke against the assertions of Luther Artic. 16. to defende that it was lawfull for the church to alter the institution of Christ and therefore to take awaie the cup from the lay people alleadgeth the example of the Apostles who are saide to baptise in the name of Christ only whereas the sacrament of baptisme Acts 8.16 10.48 Matth. 28.19 was commaunded In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holie Ghost But to bishop Fisher the papist I oppose Bellarmine the Iesuite and a papist who writing of the sacrament of baptisme Lib. 1. cap. 3. plainelie denieth that the Apostles baptised in the name of Christ only and largely proueth it and sheweth that where it is saide that they baptised in the name of Iesus or in the Lordes name the meaning is that they baptised in the faith of Iesus or by his authoritie or with baptisme which he instituted or in his name but not in his name only So that this reason which Fisher maketh for to proue the authoritie of the church heerein De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28. is verie sufficiently answered by Master Bellarmine It is therefore needefull hee shoulde make a supplie of some other argument to proue that seeing hee hath taken that weapon out of their handes Let vs therefore see how hee mendeth the matter The church saith hee may ordaine and prescribe those thinges that belong not to the substaunce of the sacramentes and are not ordered by the word of God But the rite of eating vnder one kinde or vnder two is such Therefore it maie bee ordered and prescribed of the Church These are his verie wordes this is his argument whereof the maior or first proposition as himselfe saith is most true and therefore wee graunt it but the minor which is that to eate in one kinde or in both kindes is not of the substaunce of the sacrament or ordered by the word of God that is most false And because it containeth two pointes I will brieflie touch them both Where he saith it is not of the substance of the sacrament whether we receiue in one kinde or in two it is in my iudgement euen against all reason and testimony of antiquity and the very nature of a sacrament For the sacrament must needes consist of matter and forme The matter is the bread and wine I speake of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter Iren. li. 4. ca. 34 To the forme of this Sacrament belong these wordes He brake breade and gaue them and saide take eate Math. 26.26 27 this is my bodie Hee tooke the cup blessed and saide drinke yee all of this c. Yea and neither of these can be wel omitted but that therby we are the lesse occasioned to meditate of the efficacy of Christs death passion For as the breaking of the bread that it might be giuen to vs that our bodies might be nourished thereby is a representation of Christes body which was for vs tormented so the drinking of the cup is the representation of the shedding of Christs bloud for vs. Moreouer let vs consider what is that which they would haue the material part or rather a substantial part in this sacramēt To receiue the sacrament as appeares by the censure of Collen Expl. dialog 9 expl Theol lib. 7. and Andradius but in what kinde it is receiued is not materiall say they Marke their boldenesse In the institution there is not one word that willeth vs in such generall termes to receiue the Eucharist or Sacrament but expresse wordes to will vs to Take and eate the bread and to drinke of the cup and yet that which God doth not mention they will haue to be of the substance of a sacrament and that which is expresly set downe in the word they may chuse whether they wil doe it or not But how doth Bellarmine prooue that the rite of communicating in on or two kindes De Euch. li. 4. cap. ◠8. belongeth not to the substance of the sacrament The vse of a thing saith he that is permanent is not the substance of it but the communicating is the vse of the sacrament which sacrament is a thing permanent Therefore the communicating in one or two kindes is not the substance of it The whole force of this argument consisteth in that which is chiefly in question amongst vs that is whether the sacrament is a thing permanent or not And we vpon iust cause deny it And therefore his argument is a plaine fallacie called the begging of the thing that is in question and can bee no strong reason against vs. By a thing permanent they vnderstand that the Eucharist is not onely a Sacrament as they say their other sacraments are and as baptisme is in respect of the vse and receuing of it but also that it being consecrated once to be a sacrament continueth so to bee whether it be receiued or not Which opinion they holde stiffely for the maintenance of their adoration and carrying it about For they teach it still to bee a sacrament howsoeuer they vse it Out of which absurde principle hee gathereth this false and detestable doctrine that they may change this point of Christs institution as they will But wee knowing that the Sacraments are onelie helpes for our infirmities and instituted to supply our wants and that the eating of the bodily foode in the Sacrament and so applying it to the nourishment of our our bodies is that which representeth vnto vs most liuely our receiuing of Christ by a true faith to the nourishment of our soules detest and despise those captious and curious subtilties whereby the papistes doe seeke to defend their wonderfull boldnesse in changing the very institution and in breaking the expresse commaundement of Christ Wherein wee haue for our warrant the worde of Christ which biddeth vs eate and drinke and therefore it can not be but arrogant presumption for man to forbid that which Christ hath commaunded howsoeuer hee will pretend that it is not of the substance of the Sacrament We haue also the practise in the primitiue church which is testified by Isichius In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. which vsed for to burne that which
also is a sufficient answere to his thirde argument that hee wringeth out of these wordes Whereby he will force Saint Paule whether hee will or not to finde out an offering in the Eucharist because he saith they that eate the offrings are partakers of the altar Out of which place as hee cannot probably conclude any thing to proue a sacrifice in the eucharist so hee plainely proclaimeth that if it should be proued that their masse were a sacrifice yet the priest only is the better for it because the priest onlie eateth vp all For They that eate the offrings are partakers of the Altar The second sort of proofes which Bellarmine promised is gathered out of the fathers Lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. And the first argument of that sort is drawen from the wordes of sacrifice sacrificing offering oblation and such like Chap. 15. Why the fathers vse thus to speake of the Eucharist I haue shewed a little before in the answere to his sixte argument But nowe maister Bellarmine proueth that a sacrifice may be both commemoratiue and represent an other thing as did the sacrifices in the Leuiticall law and also be a true sacrifice indeede which is most true and thereupon concludeth that this sacrifice representatiue in the eucharist is also a true sacrifice But this his argument hath no necessarie consequence for the Leuiticall sacrifice must needes be a sacrifice truely so called that by the death of the beast offered vp and by the shedding of that blood the death blodshedding of Christ might be the more liuely represented to the faithfull and more constantly beleeued of them which thing being in trueth perfourmed and Christ Iesus the true facrifice indeede being offered Heb. 10.26 There remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne Moreouer in those sacrifices that they might bee knowen to be sacrifices instituted and appointed of God we see how the thing sacrificed the manner of sacrificing and all the circumstances are plainely set downe and commaunded by God And on the contrary in this sacrifice which they seeke to maintaine all things are obscure not so much as a probable shew of any commaundement or of any institution of a sacrifice Therefore the Iewish sacrifice can be no proofe for the sacrifice of the masse Secondly he will prooue that in the eucharist is not only a representatiue sacrifice because the fathers speake sometimes of oblations and sacrifices in the plural number and therefore there are more sacrifices than that one representatiue but he taketh more paines then he needeth for we teach that besides the representation of Christs sacrifice we offer in the Eucharist the sacrifices of prayers prayses and such like spirituall oblations Thirdly baptisme saith hee is a sacrament representing Christes death but is not called of any of the fathers a sacrifice offered to God therefore the only representation of Christs death and bloudshedding cannot make the Eucharist be called a sacrifice For baptisme it representeth vnto vs the efficacy and vertue of Christes death rather than the death it selfe So that there is great difference betweene these two sacraments For the sacrament of the Lords supper representeth the sacrifice it selfe which he vpon the crosse did offer euen the tormenting and mangling of his body the shedding of his bloud So that there is much more cause why the Eucharist should be called a sacrifice than baptisme Fourthly M. Bellarmine imagineth that if it were not indeed a very proper sacrifice we might in the Eucharist say to God truely I offer to thee this gift accept Lord this sacrifice And moreouer he chargeth vs that we doe wholy abstaine from such wordes and greatly reproue them for vsing of them And yet in one short praier vsed after the receiuing of the communion with vs we pray thus Accept this our sacrifice of praise thankesgiuing And after We offer and present vnto thee o Lord our selues our soules bodies to be a reasonable holy liuely sacrifice to thee Which wordes doe not only answere the slaunder wherewith he vniustlie chargeth our churches but also sheweth that well we maie vse those words I offer to thee this gift accept Lord this sacrifice although we take not vpon vs to offer Christ really in the Eucharist As for the hyperbolicall speeches which the fathers vse sometimes which is his first reason we learne thereby rather with howe reuerent an affection we shoulde come to these sacramentes than what wee shoulde thinke the thinges themselues to be For howe can it els bee true that Bellarmine himselfe out of the Greeke fathers alleadgeth that they call it a sacrifice terrible and full of horrour which cannot be properly verified of the sacrifice propitiatorie which they woulde haue it to bee for that must needes bee sweete and comfortable vnto vs in it is only grace and mercy no horrour no terrour Lastly because the fathers acknowledge in this sacrifice of the Eucharist that there is that honor performed which is due to God only therefore woulde master Bellarmine conclude that it must needs be more than a sacrifice of representation And we doe easily yeeld vnto him that it is also called a sacrifice of the fathers yea of vs also in respect of the spirituall sacrifices therein offered And this yet must be noted that properly to speake of the Eucharist it is but a sacrament But in the respectes aforesaide De missa li. 1. cap. 16. it is sometime called yet vnproperly a sacrifice But saith master Bellarmine the fathers make mention of an altar therefore they also proue thereby that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for there is no Altar but in respect of a reall sacrifice But the first altars were but tables of wood not altars of stone such as are now for the popish sacrifice in these daies commaunded and these altars of worde they caried about from place to place as occasion serued and therfore although the names of altars be found in the most ancient fathers almost that are yet popish altars are not thereby proued neither were there any altars of stone before the time of Siluester who liued more than three hundred yeares after Christ For hee first commaunded that stone altars should be made as their freind Gerson writeth And therefore as they call it sometime an altar so sometime they call it a Table Lib. 4. cont Floratum De consecrat dist 1. cap. Nemo as doeth Clement who they say was one of the first bishops of Rome he twice within few wordes mentioneth the Lords Table If therefore it be a good argument thus to reason The fathers do sometime mention an altare for the eucharist therefore they thought it was a sacrifice for there needeth no altar but for a sacrifice I am sure this is as good an argument Somtime they speake of a table for the eucharist as out of Athanasius Theodoret Augustine this Clement and others is most plaine and therefore they thought it not to be a sacrifice for
out of the treasure of his heart bringeth forth euill It is then most certaine that where the spirite of regeneration is not to sanctifie the heart as in the infidels it is not wee can looke for no workes but such as proceede from that bitter roote of sinne which must needes bee euill and vnsauourie before God It may iustly be wondered at why they who take vpon them the name of holy catholicke church such as account themselues the members thereof doe so stifly and stubbornely maintaine so bad a cause and defend yea commend the actions of such godlesse men For not only the particular writers among them excuse from sinne the actions of Infidels Sess 6. can 57. but also the councell of Trent doth hold them all accursed that dare say they are truly sinne But their feare is least if the nature of man be set forth in her owne colours and duely considered of the doctrine of merite by workes will seeme more absurd But if the workes of gracelesse and godlesse men may be thought to be voide of sinne how much the rather maie we thinke that the works of the faithfull may be so perfect that they may merite at Gods handes And in truth no man can denie but that there is no comparison betweene the workes of the godlie and the vngodly Therefore that they may prepare a way for their doctrine of merites they would first make vs beleeue that euen in the wicked there may be good workes And least men should condemne the corruption of this our nature being not renued by the spirit of God as it iustlie deserueth and so sincerely confesse that we haue in vs no good but that it commeth wholy from God the councell of Trent doth not any thing mislike those opinions that commend the works euen of infidels yea attributing some merit vnto them as doe some of the scholemen but onlie accurseth them that accompt them to be sinne Sleiden comment li. 23. An. 1552. And a Franciscan frier reading vpon the second chapter of the epistle to the Romanes did most blasphemouslie teach in the hearing of manie of them that were at the councel and in the time of the councell that They who had no knowledge of Christ and yet liued honestly were saued Which his vnchristian doctrine was so farre from being condemned by that Antichristian councell that the diuines that were sent from the protestantes to that councel made their complaint to the emperours Ambassadours that he was heard with great liking And indeed the councel did not accurse that doctrine or him that taught it No the councel did not determine but as Andradius telleth vs Orthodoxarum explicat li. 3. hath left it free for euery man to thinke as they wil of the workes of them that are not regenerate this only that councel will not permit vs to thinke that they are sinne because they are not of faith That therefore that the scripture teacheth vs wee maie not once thinke of but all other absurd opinions of men are very tollerable Is not this strange dealing that the spirit of truth only must not speake and the lying spirits of foolish men may saie what they will But let vs see what reasons they alleadge to induce them to this persuasion I wil saie nothing of that which maister Bellarmine nothing like a graue deuine which should with all diligence and praier search out and with all humility submit himselfe to the trueth but rather like a foolish wrangling sophister whose care were onely to contend to make good that which he saith most impudently affirmeth enquiring what knowlege of moral vertues men may haue by the powers of nature Gods general help De gram libero aâ— bit li. 5. cap. 1. Of two opinions he preferreth one and why So much the more gladly saith he we doe embrace and defend it howe much the more our aduersaries mislike it I see now it is no great maruel though these pretended catholickes doe manifestly and wilfully gainsaie and withstand manie thinges most consonant to the infallible word of God For I perceiue that if we like of it it is cause good inough for them to mislike of it Only this will I saie that because this persuasion is foolish and dangerous Iam. 2.1 Saint Iames giueth a good caueat to all that are of such an humour My brethren haue not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons But to like or mislike in respect of the man is to haue it in respect of persons But hee hauing thus professed that generall reason whereby he is setled in his persuasion commeth afterwardes in the same booke to other particular reasons His first reason is this Cap. 9. God is saide manie times to rewarde the workes of the Infidels but God will not reward that which is sinne The first argument to proue that all the infidels works are not sinne therefore not all the workes of Infidels are sinne If I should examine the particular proofes that hee bringeth of his first proposition the weakenesse thereof will soone appeare For he must proue that the workes of infidels are rewarded of God For proofe whereof his first example is of the midwiues Exod. 1.21.17 that came to the women of Israel in their trauel in Aegipt of whom the Scripture giueth testimony that they feared God hath in that verie place and before also Why then doth he reckon them amongst infidels Then also the rewarde which he saith was promised to them the best learned in the Hebrew tongue apply not to the Midwiues but to the Israelites of the increase of their families Ezech. 27.18 19. The second example is out of Ezechiel where God promiseth to giue Nabuchad-nezar and his army as their wages Aegipt for their seruice which they did against Tyre Which seruice against Tyre if maister Bellarm can commend in Nabuchad-nezar as a good worke wherein hee had only regarde vnto his owne cruell and proud affection he will hardlie finde anie euill His third and last place out of Daniel Daniel 4.24 wherein Daniel giueth councel to Nabuchad-nezar to redeeme his sinnes by being good to the poore it is not very pertinent to the purpose and I shal God willing haue more fit place afterwards to speake of it Although therefore it doth easily appeare that his maior is not proued by him yet I will confesse that God is saide to rewarde such men in respect that he giueth good successe to them and prospereth them to set forth by them his owne glorie Alluding vnto the wages that seruantes haue for their worke Who although they bee not alwaies of the best yet good reason they should haue their wages for their worke The minor is that God will not rewarde sinne I grant in that respect that it is sinne hee will not But in euerie action there are to be considered manie things First the deede as in this that Nabuchad-nezar did
of iustification by workes maketh me who see no cause to like of it the more to shunne it For maister Bellarmine no meane man for learning among them when hee hath taken much paines to deceyue other with this doctrine Bellar. a Lutheran iustif li. 5. cap. 7. yet himselfe dareth not trust it and therefore setteth downe a verie good rule which if Caluine or Luther had written it it must needes haue beene called hereticall Because saith he of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and the daunger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our whole confidence in Gods mercie and goodnesse Vnto which his good and true doctrine wee say Amen and yet I hope we shall not be called heretikes The safest way to saluation is that we seek let others passe what perillous places it shall please them These and such other considerations doe make me muse that euer men will forsake God Ierem. 2.13 the fountaine of liuing waters to digge them pits euen broken pits that can holde no waters that they will leaue the plaine and safe way and choose the way that hath greatest daunger wherein they deale not onely foolishly for themselues but wickedly also with them that they leade into these blinde wayes And I would haue all men to marke this well that that doctrine which vpon paine of saluation and damnation they teach men must beleeue is daungerous by their owne confession and the contrarie most safe A great argument to teach vs that they care not so much for the saluation of mens soules as to get of men profit and credite And therefore they are the lesse to be trusted or esteemed in other poynts in controuersie who deale so vnchristianly in the most necessarie article of our religion For you must vnderstande there are two wayes to eternal life or rather to speake with the Apostle two kindes of righteousnesse The one so hard to hit that no man or woman excepting onely Christ Iesus God and man could go it so full of snares and traps that none but hee could continue in it This is that righteousnesse of the Lawe Rom. 10.5 which Moses describeth thus The man that doeth these things shall liue thereby And this righteousnesse did our Sauiour Christ speake of to the expounder of the lawe that came to him to aske What shall I doe to inherite eternall life Luke 10.25 He sent him to the lawe For if wee will be saued by workes we must keepe the lawe But then must we knowe That whosoeuer keepeth the whole lawe Iam. 2.10 and yet fayleth in one poynt he is guiltie of all Nowe this vngone and vnbeaten way so hard for vs to hit so vnpossible to keepe the church of Rome teacheth vs that wee must keepe and yet neuer any of her dearest darlings could get to heauen that way But the righteousnesse that is by fayth knoweth that Christ discended into the deepe and died for our sinnes and ascended into heauen to iustifie vs and bring vs thither For if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lorde Iesus Rom. 10.9 and beleeue in thy heart that God raysed him vp from the dead thou shalt bee saued But this righteousnesse pleaseth not our aduersaries because all the glorie of working is giuen from themselues This way they thinke too base because it is not garnished with their workes and strewed with their merits And yet This is the way Esâ— ie 30.21 walke ye in it As for that middle way which themselues haue deuised which ioyneth Christes righteousnesse and theirs together as though hee onelie could not saue them it is no good way for it maketh to wander from the path of Gods worde and is daungerous by their owne confession Take heede therefore of it for it is the way that leadeth to death and damnation Of this way I may say as saint Augustine doth of them that seeke for worldly happinesse by good workes Aug. in psal 31 praefat M. Bellar. Argument for merits Math. 5.12 De. iustif 5 cap. 3. Although saith he thou stir thine armes in good works and thou seeme most skilfully to rule thy boat yet thou runnest vpon the rockes But nowe let vs see what arguments maister Bellarmine vseth to prooue this their doctrine of iustification by workes Great is your reward or wages or hire in heauen Eternall life saith he is the wages therefore doubtlesse workes are the merits Master Bellarmine reasoneth thus Eternall life is your wages therfore your works haue deserued it The weaknesse of this argument appeareth at the first but yet for the more cleare vnderstanding of this such other places a worde or two may be added That God giueth vs eternall life for wages wee will not denie if it be vnderstood aright Admit therefore that a man hireth two workmen to worke with him the one of them a sufficient workeman who doeth his worke The other can worke little or nothing yet he that hired him biddeth him worke also and doe his best and he shall haue his wages also Nowe the one of these who is the woorkeman his hire or wages is due to him for his worke hee hath deserued it the others wages is due also and hee may challenge it not because he hath â— aâ— ned it by his worke but hee that hired him hath made himselfe his debter by his promise We see then not euerie wages is deserued Wee are that euill workeman wee can doe nothing worthie of our wages yet God by promise is indebted vnto vs. Therefore although our rewarde or wages be great yet is it not deserued of our part Praefat. in Psal 31. Our wages is called grace saith saint August If it be grace it is freely giuen What is the meaning of this it is freely giuen It costes vs nothing Thou hast done no good and forgiuenesse of sins is giuen to thee It is then no good argument to say eternal life is our wages therefore we haue deserued it His second argument God shall reward euery man according to his worke Therefore the workes are meritorious The scriptures we confesse vse often so to speake but not to establish merit but to shake off security And to this end they tell vs that if the worke be good it shall haue the reward of a good worke if it be euill Rom. 2.6 it shall be punished And so doth Saint Paul vsing the selfe same words which are also alleadged by maister Bellarmine expound himselfe vers 7. To them which by continuance in well doing seeke glory and honour and immortality 8. eternal life But vnto them that are contentious and disobey the truth and obey vnrighteousnes indignation and wrath Thus then we see that this according to the worke doth not signifie according to the merit of the worke but according to the quality of the worke And these kinde of speeches are very like to that that God said to Cain and perchance are grounded vpon it If thou
doe well Gen. 4.7 shalt thou not be accepted And if thou dost not well sinne lieth at the dore And when he telleth vs that in this iudgement God shal be the rewarder he armeth vs against hipocrisie seeing that he who cannot be corrupted with bribes nor deceiued with ignoraunce of the cause shal examine the worke And yet for the comfort of the Godly we must also know that hee accepteth of their worke not according to the imperfection of the worke it selfe but according to the spirit of regeneration which hee hath wrought in them that worke it And so because the fruit commeth from a good tree he accounteth the better of it Therefore if he crowne in vs our merites he crowneth nothing but his owne giftes as saith saint Augustine Thus then we see Li. 50. Homiliarum Homil 14. there is not any necessity in this argument God rewardeth the good worke with glory and immortality therefore the worke hath merited that rewarde And this is the answere also to his thirde argument out of these wordes of saint Matthew Matth. 25.34 Come yee blessed of my father inherit the kingdome prepared for you c. For I was an hungred and yee gaue me meat c. We confesse that God rewardeth good workes and that is all that canne be proued out of these wordes But this reward is not giuen in respect of the worke but chiefly in regarde of Gods promise And the rather also it is accepted because of that spirit of regeneration from whence the worke commeth But in the place alleadged by him out of the reuelation he dealeth not sincerely For thus doth hee cite it These are they that came out of great tribulation Apoc. 7.14 therfore they are in the presence of the throne of God 15 But saint Iohn hath thus set it downe These are they that came out of great tribulation and haue washed their long robes and haue made their long robes white in the bloud of the Lamb. Therefore are they in the presence of the throne of God Not because they came out of tribulation but because they did wash their robes in the bloud of the Lamb That is in the grace of God through Iesus Christ our Lord as saith saint Augustine Deceitfullie therefore did maister Bellarmine leaue out the true cause of their being in the presence of God In apoc Hom. 6. that he might for fortifying of his errour set downe that which was no cause of their being with God for the true cause Seeking rather by Sophistry to beguile than with sound learning to teach His fourth sort of places are such as speak of the iustice of Gods iudgement and out of them he maketh this argument God in iustice rewardeth good works therefore good workes are meritorious Maister Bellarmine doth as many euill Captaines doe that deceiue the Prince who when they haue not men enough of their owne against the muster will borrow some souldiars of some other to make out their number but when they encounter the enemie their borrowed souldiars are not there to fight for them or to doe any seruice they were but borrowed to make a shew in the muster Euen so falleth it out with maister Bellarmine He maketh a shew of many proofes But of al these which are brought in heere there is not one that proueth directly that God in iustice rewardeth good workes He proueth by them especially that Gods iudgement is iust which we deny not but say with Ieremie O Lord are not thine eies vpon the truth Ier. 5.3 And therefore these testimonies are to that effect that were the testimonies alleadged in his second argument ◠Thess 1.4.5.6 and are there answered The effect of that he saith in the two first places is this It is a token of Gods righteous iudgement ◠Tim. 4.7 ◠that he dealeth well with the Godlie To this end also is that out of saint Paul to Timothy I haue fought a good fight and haue finished my course I haue kept the faith Henceforth is laide vp for me the crowne of righteousnes which the Lord that righteous iudge shall giue me at that day We neuer denied either God to be a righteous iudge or his iudgements to be iust What then will our aduersaries inferre Must he therfore iudge according to the worthines of our worke Iob. 9.3 Psal 130.3 God forbid For if God woulde dispute with man hee were not able to answere one thing for a thousand And if the Lord should straightly marke our iniquities who should be able to abide it And therefore now there is no way for vs but to make our humble suit vnto God as doth Dauid Psal 143.1 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall no flesh liuing be iustified And yet he is iust yea and so iust that he will not suffer sinne vnpunished But rather then he should not be satisfied for the same to the vttermost he gaue his sonne to satisfie for the same euen to make recompence for vs. So that our sinne the punishment whereof our selues could not beare is punished to the vttermost in Iesus Christ And by this satisfaction which Christ hath made for vs we may stand without feare before Gods iudgement seat and plead not guilty Because that he in whom God is well pleased hath paid our debt And seeing that Christ hath once made satisfaction for our sins it were against Gods iustice to punish vs for the same And thus we see how Gods iustice in iudgment is an vnspeakeable comforte to our consciences assuring vs that God looketh not vpon vs in his iudgment as we are in our selues but as wee are belonging to his sonne Christ Neither yet doth he weigh the merite of our workes but how they are made acceptable through Christ who hath merited by his death passiō eternal life for al them that beleeue in him He looketh not I saie what we haue done but what Christ hath done And it is iust he should so doe for he was content to take him to be our suerty And this is also for the vnderstanding of the fourth place alleadged by maister Bellarmine Heb. 6.10 For God is not vnrighteous that he should forget your worke In which place Gods righteousnes is taken for his truth and faithfulnes in keeping promise that he is as good as his word and will rewarde euery good worke that is done for his sake but not for the merit of the worke but for his owne mercy That which is alleadged out of Saint Iames answereth it selfe Iames. 1.12 if M. Bellarmine had not stopped S. Iames his breath too sone Blessed is the man that indureth tentation for when he is tried he shall receiue the crowne of life saith S. Iames. But it followeth which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him And of this master Bellarmine saith nothing And yet saint Iames saith plainly that that which they receiue it is
2. I haue spokē in the answere vnto his secōd argument But heere it appeareth that such heretikes did then trouble the church Last of al not al the vehemēt speeches of the fathers are to be taken or vnderstoode as they sound but they must be warely red and wisely examined by the touchstone of Gods word And then it will appeare that the Fathers either may well bee taken or iustly refused And thus hauing I trust in the iudgement of the indifferent Reader sufficiently confirmed the trueth answered the Scriptures alleadged to the contrary and shewed some causes why the fathers should in this point be read with good aduise and iudgement it now onely remaineth that I lay open the absurditie of that shift wherein they trust much and which indeede is the chiefe strength of their cause For being pressed with the testimonies out of scriptures especially out of saint Paul which plainely testifie that we are iustified by faith Rom. 3.28 without the workes of the law first they deuised this answere that S. Paul speaketh of the ceremoniall laws that we are iustified without them but not without doing the works of the law morall or of the commaundements But this being so vntrue an answere that master Bellarmine himselfe is ashamed of it De iustificat lib. 1. cap. 19. and reasoneth against it Master Bellarmine bringeth another answere namely that the Apostle speaketh of the workes before faith So that he would haue the wordes of the Apostle thus to sound Wee are iustified by faith without the works of the law that were done before we beleeued And for the credit of this interpretation he would faine father it vpon S. Augustine and S. Ierome De gr lib. arb ca. 7. de praedest sinctor cap. 7. In praefat ps 31 Ier. ad Ctesiphontem contra Pelagianos but most vntruely as he that examineth those places shall easily see that S. Augustine and S. Ierome in those places doe not so expound those wordes of saint Paul neither giue vs anie rule so to expound them Neither yet doe Chrysostome Ambrose Theophilact or Primasius vpon those words either in the third to the Romans or second to the Galathians so expound it Rom. 4.4 Or yet S. Ierome vpon the Galathians And in the Epistle that he writeth against the Pelagians to Ctesiphon he denieth that those words may be vnderstood of the law ceremoniall but concerning this exposition which master Bellarmine bringeth there is no word As for the reason that Bellarmine hath out of S. Paul to prooue this his exposition let vs consider of it Vnto him that worketh saith S. Paul the wages is not counted by fauour but by debt Therefore saith M. Bellarmine he speaketh onely of those workes that are done by the power of free will without grace How little S. Paule dreamed of free will hath in the former chapter beene declared And that hee doeth not in these wordes expound what he meant before by the workes of the lawe the text it selfe prooueth For hauing said that Abraham beleeued God and that was counted to him for righteousnes therevpon the Apostle inferreth that if he had beene iustified by workes his iustification had bin of debt not of grace So that he doth not heere expound his former wordes but beginneth in this fourth chapter an other argument by the example of Abraham being already iustified and a holie man to prooue iustification by faith without workes euen by forgiuenesse of sinnes or couering them And as I haue shewed master Bellarmines interpretation to stand vppon no good ground but that the place aledged maketh against himselfe so that which we gather out of S. Paules words to be the most true meaning namely that workes neither before nor after our first iustification as they call it can merit the circumstances of the place do proue the whole course of his doctrine He instructeth the Rom. Galath in this doctrine who were already become christians already were iustified He doth not only shew that the works of the law do not iustifie but telleth vs that the nature of the law is to make vs to know sin Rom. 7.7 Rom. 4.15 to cause wrath euen after we be iustified And S. Paul himselfe teacheth so much in that he counted al that was in him to be but losse yea dung That he might win Christ Philip. 3.8 9 be found in him not hauing his own righteousnesse which is of the lawe but that which is through the faith of Christ euen the righteousnesse which is of God through Christ Marke heere how the Apostle saint Paul in these wordes which were written almost thirty yeeres after his conuersion still relieth vpon the righteousnesse that is by faith and he calleth it Gods righteousnesse and refuseth that which commeth by workes and that he calleth mans righteousnesse Now of this which is said I trust I may thus reason Saint Paul excludeth from iustification not only the works that are done before we beleeue but also the works which we afterwards doe therefore master Bellarmines interpretation is not true If then workes cannot iustifie as hitherto I haue taught wee may say with saint Augustine Wo bee euen to the commendable life of man Confess lib. 9. ca. 13. if thou Lord setting mercie aside examine it For Enarrat psal 109. as he saieth in an other place Whatsoeuer God hath promised hee hath promised to them that are vnworthie that it shuld not be promised as wages for good works but grace according to the name of it should be freely giuen Confess lib. 9. cap. 13. O therefore that all men that with Saint Augustine I may wish that godly wish would know themselues and they that reioyce Ad Ctesiphontem contra Pelagianos would reioyce in the Lord. For this onely perfection is left to men that they knowe themselues to be vnperfect as truly and godlily saint Hierome writeth Of iustification by Faith and what Faith is CHAP. 26 THE PROTESTANTS ANd this Iustification which by our workes we can not deserue yet by faith we do obtaine Not because our faith can of it selfe worke any such effect What faith is But it beeing a liuely and certain perswasion of our heart and conscience that God for Christ Iesus his sake forgiueth vs al our sinnes and in him accounteth vs holie and righteous doeth thus iustifie vs not as that that worketh our iustification but as that which apprehendeth and taketh holde of that righteousnes that Christ hath wrought for vs. And so by faith he being made ours is vnto vs wisdome 1. Cor. 1.30 and righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption And being thus iustified by faith Rom. 5.1 wee haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ THE PAPISTS BVT our aduersaries because they like not that Christ shoulde bee the onely salue for our sores neyther will they haue faith to bee the hande that applieth this soueraigne medicine
to our maladies But they are content to confesse that it doeth iustifie yea Bellar. de iustif li. 1. ca. 15. Con. Trid. Sess 6. cap. 6. Orth. explica li. 6. and that faith doth somewhat merit our iustification because it doeth prepare and dispose the hart to iustification or as Andradradius saith because it goeth before to open as it were the doore to hope and charitie and is the beginning and foundation of iustification but that it iustifieth as the instrumentall cause that maketh vs to rest and settle our selues for our iustification onely vpon Christ without any regarde to the merit and woorke of Fayth they will not graunt A great cause of the difference betwene vs and the papists in this question is that we agree not in the signification of the worde what it is to be iustified This therefore is the question whether wee that are not only by nature sinners but also euen after our regeneration haue that Lawe in our members rebelling against the lawe of the minde Rom. 7.27 Bellar. de Amiss grat li. 5. ca. 13. which saint Paul calleth sinne and the papists themselues confesse to be euil damned and hated of God whether I say we being such sinners shal appeare righteous before God in hauing our sinnes pardoned couered and not imputed vnto vs and Christs righteousnesse accounted ours or in that goodnes or holines or those good workes which Gods grace worketh in vs. We say that Christ by faith is made ours Christ I say with all his holinesse and righteousnesses Ephe. 1.7 By whom we haue redemption through his bloud the forgiuenes of sinnes according to his rich grace And in this assurance we stand euen before Gods iudgment seat without feare and say with the apostle Who shall laie anie thing to the charge of gods chosen Rom. 8.33.34 It is God that iustifieth who shal condemne vs. It is Christ that is dead yea or rather is risen againe Who is also at the right hand of God and also maketh request for vs. And in this faith and assured perswasion we haue peace of conscience here and are in Christ and for his sake accounted righteous elsewhere euen before him that shall iudge the quicke and the dead They teach vs that after baptisme sinne is so killed within vs Popish iustification that we are able to doe such workes as doe merit iustification and eternall life That iustification is not by works but by imputation Gen. 22.18 And by this righteousnesse that is in vs we are made so iust and righteous that we are so iustified before God To confirme that which we teach we haue the promise made to Abraham That in his seede all the nations of the earth should be blessed In his seede I say not in our selues we must all be blessed And that Christ is this seede saint Paul to the Galathians doth affirme Gal. 3.16 Secondly the iustification of the people of the Iewes which they by their sacrifices obtained is a right pattern of our iustification For though the bloud of of the beasts could not make them holy yet the sacrifice being offered for them according to the law Hep. 9.9 did worke so much that they who before were accounted vncleane and might not appeare before the Lord nowe were accounted cleane and might serue before him Euen so we though wee bee not in our selues yet by this our sacrifice that hath offered him selfe a sweete smell vnto God the father wee are accounted cleane and without sinne Rom. 5.2 and haue by him accesse vnto that grace wherein we stand Thirdly this iustification is commended vnto vs by Dauid Psal 32.1.2 Blessed is he whose wickednesse is forgiuen and whose sinne is couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie And for this cause he stirreth vp his soule to praise the Lord Psal 103.3 because saith he He forgiueth al thine iniquities It is promised by Ieremie I will forgiue their iniquities Iere. 31.34 and remember their sinnes no more And the Prophet Hose teacheth the people to pray for it Hose 14.2 saying thus Take vnto you words and turne to the Lord and say vnto him Take away all iniquitie and receiue vs graciously Where this is also by the way to be marked that the prophet here biddeth vs come to God with such words as if he had said Your works are euill and cannot helpe they cannot merit Yet come with good words be suiters for grace Fourthly our sauiour Christ doth commend vnto vs this iustification which we haue by him apprehend by faith Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish Iohn 3.16 but haue euerlasting life Of whom the apostles also haue learned that we are iustified by faith that righteousnes is imputed vnto vs that we are accounted righteous Rom. 3.28 Rom. 4.3.11 Lastly we see how the apostle doth exclude works frō iustifying than which there can be no stronger argumēt against this inherent iustification which the papists contend for or for the imputation of righteousnes by faith in Christ Iesus which we according vnto the scriptures doe preach And therefore he doth not onely exclude works in generall from iustification Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.11 Rom. 4. Iustified by faith without the workes of the law But also those works that Abraham did after his first calling when now he was regenerate euen then I say attributing iustification to faith and not to his workes And likewise for his owne works long after he was regenerate Phil. 3.9 he reiecteth them that he might attaine vnto righteousnesse by faith So little did he trust vnto that inherent righteousnesse that he counted it but dung and so wholie did he depend on that righteousnes that we haue by faith in Christ Iesus But of this I haue spoken in the end of the former chapter And I trust this may serue the turne to shew how farre we are from that inherent righteousnes and keeping of the law which our popish Pharisees dreame of especially if we consider what great perfection the law requireth to be in our workes Master Bellar. his profe for inherent iustice De iustif li. 2. cap. 3. Rom. 5.19 and what want through our corruption there is in the same But master Bellarmine bringeth some arguments to proue this inherent righteousnesse The first is out of these words As by one mans disobediēce many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many are made iust Of this argument because I haue spoken at large towards the latter ende of the 23. chapter I leaue the reader to that place His second argumēt is this Al are iustified freely by his grace Rom. 3.24.25 throgh the redemption that is in Christ Iesus whom God hath set to be a reconciliation In which place by grace master Bellarmine vnderstandeth that righteousnesse that God hath giuen or infused into vs for so he speaketh But saint Augustine in that place vnderstandeth
so especially such great blasphemies as this as hath with it a manifest contempt of God and his worde bringeth for the most parte a generall destruction Prou. 8.15 If Princes therefore bee Gods lieutenantes and supply his roome as indeede they doe if by him they beare rule as Salomon affirmeth it is their dutie to watch all opportunities to reforme if it maie be or else to roote out their maisters enemies and to imploy their whole power in defence of his glorie who setteth them in honour establisheth their authority subdueth vnto them their subiectes giueth peace in their lande when neede is if it seeme good to him vanquisheth their enemies to bee shorte without whom they haue no power Let it neuer bee saide that in a lande wherein the gospell is so constantly and zealously professed and by so many godlie lawes established it shall bee lawfull for some seduced but very selfe-willed folkes such as recusantes are for the most parte to reiect it without all feare of punishment or for a prophane crew such are these Atheistes to blaspheme God without controlement If wee loue the truth let vs with courage set our selues against the enemies therof If wee feare God truely let vs also feare to bee partakers of their sinnes that will not acknowledge him But priuate persons that allowe or doe not reprooue Magistrates that doe not refourme such sinnes are partakers thereof Rowze vp your selues therefore O Christian magistrats be zealous in his cause that is so louing to you Be faithful vnto him that neuer deceiued any that trusted in him Beate downe sinne maintaine the trueth cherish the godlie against all popish heretickes against all prophane Atheistes that such as doe euill may feare and know that Magistrats beare not the sword for naught Rom. 13.4 Thinke it to be the best pollicie to serue the Lord sincerely For so Moses teacheth the Israelites but his lesson is not of many politickes well learned Keepe therefore saith he and do them for that is your wisedome And that it is no wisdome to be colde or carelesse in Gods cause Deut. 4.6 for it procureth his wrath for Cursed be he that doeth the worke of the Lorde negligently Yea and when God will haue his iudgementes sharpely executed Ierem. 48.10 Cursed be he that keepeth backe his sworde from bloud And as those are accursed that doe not execute those sharpe iudgementes of God against his enemies so shall not they bee free from wrath that are too remisse in inflicting of gentler punishmentes when occasion requireth Serue the Lorde therefore and he wil saue you Defend his cause and he wil defend you Rest not vpon your owne strength or pollicie do his wil faithfully and he will not faile you So shal you bring safety and quietnesse to your selues and Gods blessing vpon your people Whereas on the contrary if such despisers of God and his trueth be not in some reasonable sort brideled and reformed God is by such want of zeale prouoked the offendours by such remisnesse are incouraged in their euil and manie not euill persons are much discouraged from their dutiful obedience to God and man The Lord therefore open the eies of our christian Magistrates and giue them wisedome that they maie see and wisely consider of these things The Lorde I say by his holie spirite worke in their heartes so earnest a zeale to Gods trueth that they may as in duty they ought seeke sincerely to maintaine the same and to growe not in knowledge onlie and outwarde profession Psal 78 7â— but in practise also and holy conuersation That as Dauid did feede the people according to the simplicity of his heart and guide them by the discretion of his handes so they may walke euery one in their place and calling vprightly and with a sincere hearte before the Lorde to guide their people in the good waies to bring them to the wholsome pastures that they and we their subiects may with one heart serue Christ our Lord here and raigne with him else-where to whom with the father and the holyghost be al honor and glory now and for euer FINIS