the end whereof for the most part is neuer agreeable to the beginning And this is that which the Philosopher teacheth when he saith that Mendacium de seipso duplex est A lye is double of it selfe And as Chrysostome noteth Mendacia si non habent quem deciptant ipsa sibi mentiuntur Lyes if they haue not one to deceiue they deceiue and beguile themselues So that it must needes follow that that Religion which infoldeth in it selfe contradictions and contrarieties cannot be the truth but must of necessitie be lying and erronious 3. I therefore leaue the Maior thus cleared and come to the proofe of the Minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome is replenished with many contradictions and is at variance and discord in it selfe and therefore cannot stand as our Sauiour concludeth of an house or a kingdom And to shew this to be true let vs first begin with the Sacrament in the doctrine whereof are enwrapped many absurd contradictions as for example 4. It is a ground and principle of their Religion and of ours and of the truth that Christ our Sauiour tooke verily and truely flesh of the Virgine Mary and had a true humane body like to vs in all things sinne onely excepted and therefore that this body of his had all the demensions and circumscriptions of a body and all the properties and qualities naturally belonging thereunto This ground of truth the Church of God hath euer defended against all Heretikes of former and latter times that impugned the same to wit the Marionites the Manichees and the Eutychians with diuers others that thought and taught erroniously concerning the humanity of Christ affirming that he had no true but a fantasticall body Now this error is in outward appearance condemned by the Church of Rome and adiudged as a damnable heresie But if we looke into other of their doctrines and necessary consequences that may be deriued therefrom we shall fiâ—de that they crosse their owne positions and hold in substance as much as the olde Heretikes did 5. For in their doctrine of the Sacrament they teach that Christ gaue his owne naturall body with his owne hands to his Apostles when he said This is my body by which it must needs follow that he both kept his body to himselfe sitting at the Table and also gaue it to his Apostles so that at this first Supper there were thirteene bodies of Christ for euery one by their doctrine had the true naturall body of Christ wholly communicated vnto him Now how is Christs bodie heere a true naturall body being in thirteene places at once From hence thus I reason A true naturall body is circumscribed and can be but in one place at once but by the Popish doctrine of transsubstantiation Christs body was in diuers places at once therefore it was no true naturall body And so the doctrine of Transubstantiation doÌ„th contradict and ouerthrow the doctrine of the truth of Christs humane nature and that not onely after it was glorifyed whereof peraduenture there might be some better shew of reason but euen whilst it was here vpon the earth subiect to all humane sinlesse infirmities yea to death it selfe And this conclusion is not ours but S. Augustines that is Take away from bodies saith he space of place and they will bee no where and because they will be no where therefore they will not be at all And againe in the same Epistle he saith speaking of Christ that â— We must take heed that we do not so build vp the Diuinitie of Christ a man that we take away the truth of his body But the Romanists destroy the truth of Christs humanitie by giuing vnto it an essentiall being and subsisting in many distant places at once and make it no body in truth by denying vnto it a certayne circumscription of one singular place at one time which â—s a necessary accâ—slarie to all quantitiue bodies 6. Bellarmine to salue this contradiction labours mainely stretching all the strings of his wit to the highest straine euen till they cracke againe but all his labour is not worth a rush euery childe may say that he doth but tryfle for first hee saith that Christs body is but in one place locally but in many places sacramentalâ—y Secondly that it is in the consecrated hoast definitiuè and not circumscriptiuè definitely and not circumscriptiuely Thirdly not satisfying himselfe with this euasion neither he saith that it is in the Sacrament Tanquam Deus est in loco As God is in a place that is by a supernaturall presence onely Lastly he flyeth to Gods omnipotency and disclayming all naturall respect saith it is a miracle so that in truth he knoweth not what to say one part of his speech thwarting and crossing another 7. For if the body of Christ bee in the Sacrament sacramentally onely then it is not either definitely as Angels and Spirits are said to be or diuinely as God is for sacramentally to be in a place is to bee there by way of relation and not by corporall existence as all know and so we say that Christs body is there present Againe if it be definitiuely then it cannot be a substantiall body subsisting of parts and members and quantitie as they say Christs body doth in the Sacrament because it is proper to Spirits and intellectuall essences to bee in a place after that manner and not to bodyes as their learned Aquinas telleth vs and if it bee there after the manner of Gods presence then it cannot bee there after the manner of a body vnlesse with the Anthropomorphites he will impiously ascribe a body vnto God And lastly touching Gods omnipotency and the miracle arising therefrom Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth that God cannot doe that which doth imply contradiction for that is to bee vnlike to himselfe and to deny himselfe but these things are contradictories a body with quantity that is with iust length bredth proportion sitting at the Table and at the same time the same body without length bredth or proportion hidden in the bread a body visible and yet the same inuisible at the same instant a body with position and situation of parts and yet the same without position and situation of parts included in euery crâ—mme of the hoast Yea lastly one body sitting at the Table with his Apostles speaking breathing spreading his hands and full of infirmitie the other in the stomacks of his Disciples neither speaking nor breathing nor stirring noâ— subiect to infirmitie Now compare the termes together Sitting and not sitting visible and inuisible with situation and without situation one and not one and all at the same instant and moment of time are grosse contradictions which as Bellarmine confesseth Almighty God himselfe cannot reconcile who by his omnipotent power is able to doe all things but this is nothing and therefore is rather to be accounted a defect of impotency then
in Christ is not taken away by their vnion in one person but the proprietie of each nature is kept safe Leo one of their Popes Christ hath vnited both natures together by such a league that neither glorification doth consume the inferiour nature nor assumption doth diminish the superiour To these I might adde many more but these are sufficient to prooue that this doctrine touching the truth of Christs humanitie now glorified in the heauens that he hath retained our nature with all the proprieties sinne onely and infirmities excepted is concordant both with holy Scripture and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie 12. Now this doctrine is crossed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs touching Transubstantiation and the carnall and corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for this they teach that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament with the whole magnitude thereof together with a true order and disposition of parts flesh bloud and bone as he was borne liued crucified rose againe and yet they say that the same body in the Eucharist though it hath magnitude and extention and disposition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body neuerthelesse doth not fill a place neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the place which it possesseth here be pregnant and manifest contradictions Christ hath one body and yet many bodies euen as many as there are consecrated hoasts in the world that is it may be a thousand bodies at once and so his body is one and not one at the same time Againe this body is in heauen in a place and the same body at the same instant is on the Altar without being compassed about with place to be in heauen and to be in earth at one instant are contradictory propositions being vnderstoode of finite substances and not of that infinite essence which filleth all places for they imply thus much to be in heauen and net to be in heauen to be in earth and not to be in earth which be the rules of Logicke and Reason the mother of Logicke cannot be together true Againe at one moment of time to be aboue and yet below to bee remooued farre off and yet bee neere adioyning to come to one place and yet not to depart from another are so meerely opposite to each other that they cannot be reconciled And lastly a body to haue forme magnitude extention and disposition of parts and yet not with these to fill a place is as much as to say it is a body and yet not a bodie it is in a place and yet not in that very same place these are contradictions so euident that it is impossible for the wit of man to reconcile them 13. Notwithstanding the aduocates of the Romish Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske and by many arguments endeauour to reunite these oppositions first by Gods omnipotency secondly by the qualities of a glorified body and thirdly by arguments from the discourse of reason From hence they thus argue All things are possible to God and therefore this is possible neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God saue these things Quae facere non est facere sed deficere as Bellarmine speaketh that is which to doe is not to doe but to vndoe and doe argue rather impotency then potency of which sort that one body should be in many places at once is not saith he because it is not in expresse words excepted in Scripture as to lye and to denye himselfe are To this I answere first that albeit the Scripture doth not expresly except this from Gods omnipotency to make one body to bee in two places at once yet implyedly it doth for it denyeth power or rather weaknesse to God to doe those things which imply contradiction of which kinde this is for one body to be in many places at once And Bellarmine himselfe saith that this is a first principle in the light of nature euery thing is or is not which being taken away all knowledge faileth Secondly I answere that the power of God is not so much to be considered as his will nor what he can doe but what he hath reucaled in his word that hee will doe for if wee argue from his power to the effect Wee may deuise God saith Tertullian to doe any thing because he could doe it And therefore the same Authour saith Dei posse velle est Dei nonposse nolle God can of stones raise vp Children vnto Abraham saith Iohn Baptist Now if any should hence conclude that any of Abrahams children were made of stones in a proper speech all would thinke him to haue no more wit then a stone And to this accordeth Theodoret when hee saith That God can doe all things which hee will but God will not doe any of these things which are not agreeable to his nature But for to make a body to be without quantity and a quantity to be without dimension and dimension without a place that is as much to say a body without a body and quantity without quantity and a place without a place is contrary to Gods nature and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will and so hath no correspondence with his power And lastly I answere that it is no good reason to say God can doe such a thing therefore he doth it but rather thus God will doe such a thing therefore he can doe it and thus the Scripture teacheth vs to reason Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did hee in heauen and in earth and not whatsoeuer hee could doe but whatsouer it pleased him to do and the Leper said to our Sauiour Christ Master if thou wilt thou canst make me cleane no◠if thou canst thou wilt but if thou wilt thou canst 14. Secondly whereas they obiect that Christs bodie after his glorification is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body by reason of that super-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others and thereby as he came to his Apostles the dores being shut and rose out of his graue notwithstanding the stone that lay vpō it and appeared vnto Paul on earth being at the same time in heauen so he is in the Eucharist after a strange and miraculous manner and yet is in heauen at the same time I answere first with Theodoret that Christs bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature but remaineth a true bodie filled with diuine glory And with Augustine that Christ gaue vnto his flesh immortality but tooke not away nature and in another place That though Christ had a spirituall body after his resurrection yet it was a true bodie because he said to his Disciples Palpate videte feele and see and as his body was then after his resurrection so it is now being in the heauens Secondly that when hee came out of the graue the Angell remoued the stone
him my grace is sufficient for thee And besides what is it but a teÌ„pting of God to refuse the ordinary remedy which God hath ordained which is marriage and to flye to extraordinary meanes as if a man should refuse all bodily sustenance on earth in hope that God will feed him extraordinarily from heauen at his deuout request because he hath promised that those which feare him shall want nothing and whatsoeuer we aske in the name of Christ shall be graunted Let Saint Augustine determine this doubt whose resolution is this concerning all things which men pray for which are not necessary to saluation Aliquando Deus iratus dat quod petis Deus propitius negat quod petis Sometimes God granteth in anger and sometimes denyeth in mercie that which thou desirest And let Origens practice put it out of all doubt who to auoid incontinencie and to quench the fiery lusts of the flesh offered violence to his own flesh by cutting off those parts wherin concupiscence raigneth If he had beene persâ—aded that by fasting and prayer he could haue obtained that gift from heauen surely he would haue macerated his body with the one and brawned his knees with the other rather then to haue fallen to that desperate and vnnaturall remedy 28. But to leaue this their vaine obiection and to come a little neerer to the poynt how can that doctrine choose but lead to loosenes which crosseth not onely the ordinance of God who was the first ordainer of Marriage but also the instinct of nature for this was naturally instilled into all liuing Creatures especially Man at the first creation that he should encrease and multiply by vertue of which institution of nature a desire is engrafted in all the posterity of Adam of the propagation of their kind that they may as it were liue in their succession And whereas Bellarmine obiecteth that these words Encrease and multiply containe not a precept but an institution of nature and a promise of fecundity because the same words are vttered to other Creatures which are not capable of precepts and also because if it were a precept it should bind all to encrease and multiply and so imurie should be offered to Christ to Marie and other holie virgines I answere that aâ—beit one member of his reason is vnsound to wit that beasts are vncapable of precepts for God spake to the Fish and it cast vp Ionah on the dry land which sheweth that beasts in their kind vnderstand Gods precepts and obey yet we do not say that this is an absolute precept binding all without exception to marriage but onely a liberty granted to all that will to marrie that thereby mankind may be still propagated and therefore they which take away this liberty from all ecclesiasticall persons and monasticall Votaries offer iniury to nature and tyrannize ouer the bodies and soules of men For whence ariseth this necessary conclusion that the vow of single life is repugnant to nature and therefore none may take it vpon them but those either in whome nature is defectiue which our Sauiour saith were borne chaste from their mothers belly or that are endowed with a supernaturall gift as our blessed Sauiour the blessed Virgin his mother and other holy men and women and so by consequent it followeth because this gift is rare and extraordinary that most of them which by a rash vowe binde themselues from marriage should fall into fornication and promiscuous lust The course of nature in man-kind is like the source of a running streame which by no dammes nor artificiall barres can bee stopped but it will runne either the naturall course in the channell or some other by-passage and that the more it is stopped the more violently it rageth except the fountaine and spring be dryed vp So except the fountaine of concupiscence in incontinent persons be dryed vp by a supernaturall and extraordinary worke the more it is interrupted the more outragiously it fometh Therefore if the ordinary channell of marriage be dammed vp it must needs burst ouer the bankes of lawfulnes and spread it selfe ouer the pastures and medowes of adioyning neighbours This is the very case of our Romish shauelings being barred from marriage they burst sorth like wilde Bulls into other mens grounds and defile their beds by adultery and fill their houses with bastardy 29. If they challenge to themselues the supernaturall gift of continency experience sheweth that their challenge is vaine for not one of an hundred of them liueth chastly and besides as God hath giuen that gift often to the heathen and reprobate as Histories report so very often yea most ordinarily doth he deny it to his own children for ordinary grace doth not abolish but sanctifie nature so that this iâ— no gift of ordinary sauing grace but a superordinary worke aboue grace and that also many times without grace If then it be not in the power of any to quench the instincts of nature if â—t be not a worke of ordinary grace to abolish nature but it requireth extraordinary grace for the effecting thereof if the course of nature be stopped one way it will burst forth another then we may by sound reason conclude that the vowe of chastity and single life and the prohibition of marriage in the Church of Rome doth open a wide gappe to all loose and licencious liuing 30. Lastly that all this is true let the lamentable effects and fruits of this their doctrine stand vp for witnesse and vmpâ—ers in this matter for how shall a man better iudge of the goodnesse of the cause then by the effects a good â—ree cannot bring forth euill fruite nor an euill tree good fruit euery tree is knowne by his fruit and albeit often that which is not the cause is put for the cause and by the accidentall failing of the medium or instrument the cause may misse of his proper effect Yet when the effects are not rare but frequent yea infinite and such as are so like that they seeme as it were of one stampe and as it were all egges of one bird then it must needs follow that parentem sequitur sua proles like childe like parent such as the effect such must the cause needs be To beginne with Nicholas one of the seuen Deacons the prime Authour of the sect of the Nicholaitans condemned by Saint Iohn Apoc. 2. Let Epiphanius tell vs what his opinion was and what fruites issued there-from This Nicholas hauing a beautifull wife when hee sawe others in admiration for their single life that he might not seeme inferiour to them vtterly renounced the company of his wife and determined neuer to haue fellowship with her againe But when hee was not able to represse any longer the flame of concupiscence and being ashamed to returne to his wife lest he should be condemned of inconstancy he chose rather to giue ouer himselfe to all manner of vnlawfull lust yea to that which
that it was the Italian fashion to liue by robberie and to trample vnder focte all equity and religion And for the moderne times witnesse the common prouerbe An Englishman Italionate a deuill incarnate Rome is the Popes owne â—eate for it is the spirituall Babylon built vpon seuen hils and yet that is the sincke of Italy witnesse their owne Mantuan I pudor in villas c. Vrbs est iam tot a lupanar Depart honesty into Villages the Citie is wholly become a Stewes and Trauailors report it was neuer so euill as it is at this day witnesse their owne pasquill Roma vale vidi satis est vidisse reuertar Cum leno aut meretrix scurra cynaedus ero Now farewell Rome I haue thee seene it was enough to see I will returne when as I meane Bawde Pander Knaue to bee As if there were none but such at Rome 42. And this the best of them against their wils acknowledge when they confesse Rome to be mysticall Babylon for why is Rome so stiled in the Scripture but because it resembleth the Assyrian Babylon in pride idolatry filthinesse and especially in most cruell persecution of the Church of God and for the same cause it is called spirituall Sodome and Egypt Sodeme for pride and filthines Egypt for Idolatry and cruelty The Popes court is the Popes owne Sanctum Sanctorum if in reuerence to that holy place I may so say yet that is the sincke of the Citie Witnesse Catherina Senensis that holy woman whom Pope Pius the second canonized for a Saint who thus complained that in the Court of Rome where should bee a delicate Paradise of vertues she sound a stincke of hellish vices Concerning the whole state of the Romane Church both Laiâ—ty and Clergy heare what the iudgement of Durand was in his time Desperata est salus Romanae Ecclesiae c. The saluation of the Romane Church is desperate of which is verified the sayings of the Prophet Esay It shall be a bed of Dragons and of Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinall in his time Ad eum statum venit c. The Romane Church is come to that state that it is not worthy to be gouerned but by reprobates And of Platina himselfe the Popes owne Secretary Hac nostra aetate sayth he vitia cò crcuerunt c. In this our age vices are so increased that they seeme to haue scarce left vs any place in Gods mercy c. After the Councell of Trent which promised a reformation heare how a Bishop of their owne Espensaeus complaineth All hope saith he of reformation is taken away where vnder the Sunne is there greater licenciousnes clamour impurity I will not say madnesse and impudency then in this Citie such and so great as none can beleeue but he which hath seene it none can deny but he which hath not seene it I could heape vp many like testimonies for the clearing of this poynt but it is needlesse seeing that all that haue either gotten experimentall knowledge by their trauailes or speculatiue by their reading can will iustifie the truth of this position that in no place of the world more impiety atheisme impurity cruelty poysoning trechery all maner of villanie raigneth then in Italy the Popes owne dominions and in Rome vnder his Holinesse nose So that for shame but that the whore of Babylon and her adherents haue brazen foreheads they may cease to lay that imputation of loosnesse and wickednesse of life vpon vs and our Religion and assume the aspersion of it vnto themselues being farre more guilty and their religion directly tending thervnto by these six maine grounds which I haue in this first motiue propounded to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader The Lord of his mercy open our eyes that we may discerne the truth and our hearts that we may loue it and embrace it MOTIVE II. That religion which maintaines by the grounds thereof things forbidden by all lawes both of God of Nature and of Man cannot be the true religion but such is the religion of the Romane Church Ergo. THe first proposition in this reason is vnquestionable and without controuersie for the law of God is one part of true religion as the Gospell is the other and therfore whatsoeuer contradicts this law is opposite vnto true religion and so cannot be true religion it selfe for truth is not opposite vnto truth but falshood and the lawe of nature is nothing but the law of God engrauen in the hearts of all men by the instinct of nature which Tullie calleth a lawe engendred not imposed borne with vs not laid vpon vs. And the positiue laws of men if they be good are nothing els but extracts out of the law of God characters of the law of nature That religion therefore that crosseth all these lawes by allowance of such things which are by them all condemned cannot in any wise be the true religion but must needs stand guilty of falshoode and errour Now that the Romish religion is such which is the second proposition in the reason that is my taske to proue and I hope I shall by inuincible arguments make good the same 1. And first what can bee more contrary to the lawes of God of Nature of Man then treason and rebellion against Princes for the lawe of God commandeth ciuill obedience to the Magistrate by the first precept of the second Table and our Sauiour in the Gospell biddeth to giue to Caesar those things that belong vnto Caesar and Saint Paul chargeth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers because all power is of God euen tyrannicall power as our Sauiour confesseth to Pilate Thou hadst no power ouer mee except it was giuen thee from aboue where he acknowledgeth that Pilates power though he was a tyrant was of God and therefore submitteth himselfe vnto it As for the law of nature it requireth as much of all for as in the bodie naturall all the outward members and inward faculties are gouerned by reason residing in the head and in the body oiconomike all the familie is directed by the Father or Master thereof so in the body politique all the members of a Common-wealth must by natures decree be obedient to the King or gouernour whom to resist is to rebell against nature as it is against nature for the member to mutiny against the head or for children and seruants to be disobedient to their Fathers or Masters Neither are the lawes positiue any whit behinde for no offence by lawe is more seuerely punished then crimen laesae Maiestatis that is high treason against the Kings person or State and that not onely in this our Kingdome but in all others as is sufficiently knowen 2. Now that the Romish doctrine and religion is a supporter of treason and an animater of traytors against their Soueraignes I call to witnesse first their owne principles and secondly their
that entring into their Temples they were sprinkled not that they might be defiled but that if they had any sinne they might be purged from it Thus it plainely appeareth that this was a Heathenish custome which how it can agree with the Church of Christ I know not sure I am that in the Primitiue Church there was no holy-water besides the water of Baptisme that can be proued by any good authority for the testimonies of Alexander the first Clement and Basil alledged by Bellarmine are all counterfeit as partly the matter in them contayned and partly the censure of Eusebius and Erasmus doe sufficiently proue and might here bee demonstrated if I thought it necessary neither doth it agree with the nature of those times to the which S. Iohn so lately before had left this doctrine that the onely purgation of sinne was the bloud of Christ and not holy-water consecrated by a Priest 9. In like manner their vse of Incense on their Altars to driue away deuils as they say doth sauour both of Iudaisme and of Paganisme That the Iewes vsed to burne Incense in sacrifice to God is no question for they had their Altar of burnt Incense appoynted by God himselfe for that purpose this Altar without question was a type of Christ our Mediatour and the incense of the prayers of the Saints which are then acceptable vnto God when they are offered vp in the name of Christ who is the Altar that sanctifieth all our sacrifices This is so euident not only out of holy Scripture but froÌ„ the full consent of all Writers old new that it is needles to stand to prooue it And therefore offering of Incense being a shadow of things to come why should it still remaine seeing the Sunne of righteousnesse is risen in our Horizon and hath â—ispelled all shadowes by the glorious beames of his presence As touching the Pagans Polydore Virgil confesseth that it was their custome to offer Incense to their Idols And Theodoret affirmeth that when Iulian distributed gold amongst his Souldiers hee commanded an Altar full of coales to bee set by him and Frankincense to bee layd on a Table to the end that euery one would recieue gold at his hand should first cast Frankincense vpon the Altar and this hee did to distinguish the Pagan from the Christian By which it is euident by the way that at that time this was not in vse in the Church This Iewish and Paganish custome then how commeth it to passe that it should now bee taken vp as a holy seruice of God Are not all Iewish Ceremonies at an end by the coÌ„ming of the body which is Christ And is it fit that Christians should learne to worship God froÌ„ the Gentiles which were worshippers of deuils These things are so dissonant to the nature of true Religion that they admit no iust reconciliation Sure it is that the Primitiue Church neuer knew the vse therof as appeareth both by that Example of Iulian before alleaged out of Theodoret and also by testimonies of Arnobius Eusebius and Augustine all which acknowledge that the Church in their time had no such custome We goâ—â—into Arabia saith Saint Augustine to fetch Frankincense God requireth of vs the sacrifice of praise As for the auncient Leiturgies and Dionisius that mention it in Gods seruice wee care not for them seeing all men either vehemently suspect them or vtterly reiect them as counterfeit 10. Againe the Iewes had their holy oyle wherewith their Kings Priests and Prophets were anoynted which was a type and figure of that spirituall vnction of grace wherewith Christ our head was anoynted aboue his fellowes and all his members in a due proportion The Church of Rome hath also reuiued this Ceremonie and that after a farre more superstitious manner for there was not halfe such a stirre at the making of the holy oyle of the Tabernacle as there is at the consecrating of their holy Chrisme it would euen prouoke the spleene to laughter and the gall to bitternesse to heare or behold the apish trickes that they vse at the making of their precious Chrisme such muttering such charming and enchanting such blowing and breathing such exorcising and coniuring the deuill by the mitted Bishop first and then twelue Priests in their order before they come to Aue Sanctum Chrisma All haile O holy Chrisme as is wonderfull What is this I pray you but a profest restoring of a Iewish Ceremony and a plaine declaration that their Priests are rather Iewish than Christian and that those graces of Gods spirit which were figured by their holy oyle are not to bee found in cheir Church seeing they retaine so superstitiously the type thereof If they say that Saint Iames mentioneth oyle to bee vsed at the visitation of the sicke whereby they recouered health I answer first that this was no such consecrated oyle as is in vse in the Church of Rome and secondly that it was applyed onely to the sicke that were in danger of death not to young Infants that are new come into the world at their baptisme thirdly that it was not an instrument of spirituall grace but of corporall health and lastly that it lasted onely during the time that miracles liued in the Church and dyed when they dyed so that Saint Iames his oyle maketh nothing for the maintenance of the Romish Chrisme and therefore I leaue it vnto them as a meere Iewish superstition 11. Lastly doth not the high Priest of Rome imitate the high Priest of the Iewes in his Pontificall garments are not their Fryers and Anchorites â—pâ—sh counterfeiters of the Leuiticall Nazarites doth not their Iubile both in name and nature represent the Iewish Iubile no man that knoweth the one and seeth the other but will confesse this to be true for Aaron wore a Crowne vpon his head to signifie the Kingly power of Christ the Bishop of Rome hath three Crownes to signifie forsooth his threefold power in Heauen Earth and Purgatory Or as Aretine iested one for the flesh another for the world and the third for the deuill and none for God Aaron had a plate on his Crowne wherin was engrauen Holinesse to the Lord. The Bishop of Rome vsed to weare a plate on his head wherein was written the word Mysterie as if he would professe himselfe to be the vpholder of that mystery of iniquitie spoken of by the Apostle Aaron had his Ephod and Robe the Bishop of Rome hath answerable therevnto his rich Pontificall attire which in many resemblances is like vnto the same yea the Romanists doe plainely Iudaize in bringing in againe into the Priestly order such variety of garments as the Pall the Miter the Crozier-staffe the Albe the Chimere the gray Amice the Sâ—oale with such like Insomuch that when their Bishops come forth to doe diuine seruice a man would thinke that he saw Aaron addressed with his attire to sacrifice at the Altar 12. As touching
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
an effect of omnipotency Dicitur enim Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult i. For God is sayd to be omnipotent by doing that which he will not by suffering that which he will not 8. From hence it must needes follow that heere can bee no miracle and that not onely because miracles are extraordinary works of God and this change of substances is ordinary in euery Sacrament as they say and miracles are not contrary but aboue or beside nature but this is flat contrary not onely to nature but to God himselfe the Authour and Creator of nature and miracles are alwaies sensible but this is insensible and cannot bee discerned by any outward meanes but also for that no miracle can imply contradiction in it selfe as this must needes doe if it were as they would haue it For when Aarons Rodde was turned into a Serpent it left to be a Rodde and when it turned into a Rodde it left to be a Serpent And when the Water was turned into Wine it left to bee Water it was impossible that it should haue beene both Water and Wine at one time in one and the same respect or a Rodde and a Serpent at once And so of all other miracles there is not one to be found that enwrappeth contradictions Besides all which Saint Augustine concludeth peremptorily that Sacraments may haue honour vt Religiosa but not amazement vt admiranda as miracles And Thomas Aquinas more plainely saith Ea quae contradictionem implioant sub diuina potentia non continentur i. Those things which imply contradiction cannot fall vnder the power of God 9. They reply that they teach no more then Cyprian did thirteeene hundred yeeres since who said that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands at the last Supper I answere that Cyprian in that place the rest of the Fathers elsewhere did often vse hyperbolicall speeches to extoll the dignity of the Sacrament and to shew the certainty and efficacy of our communion with Christ and of our spirituall eating of him but they neuer meant so as the Romanists doe that Christ bore his reall naturall substantiall body in his owne hands and gaue it to his Apostles after a fleshly manner For Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in another place when hee saith that Sacraments haue the names of those things which they signifie And Saint Augustine more plainly saith that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands after a sort If it had beene really and substantially what neede hee haue added after a sort for this word as they vse to speake in Schooles is Terminus diminutiuus qui realitati vbique detrahit A diminitiue terme which detracteth from the realtie and true being of a thing And this speech Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands after a sort is all one with that in another place After a certaine manner the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body So that it is playne that when the Fathers said Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands they meant nothing but that he bore in his hands the Sacrament of himselfe and thus this first contradiction is irreconciliable I come to a second and that in the Sacrament which is no lesse palpable 10. It is a principle of their Religion and of the truth it selfe that Christ after his resurrection ascended into heauen and there filleth a place and hath figure forme and disposition of parts and is circumscribed within a certaine compasse according to the nature of a body This is Bellarmines owne assertion and it is consonant to sound doctrine confirmed both by manifest Scripture and vniforme consent of ancient Fathers for Scripture Christ is said to bee like vnto vs and not barely like but like in all things that is both in nature and in the qualities and quantities of nature And to put the matter out of doubt onely one thing is excepted wherin he is not like vnto vs and that is Sinne whereby he is absolutely left to bee like vnto vs in all other things And lest any should thinke that that was true onely whilst he was here vpon earth the Apostle in the forenamed places applyeth it to him being in heauen for hee saith Wee haue not an High-priest which cannot be touched with our infirmities and therefore let vs boldly goe vnto the throne of grace where the Apostles argument were of no force if he were like vnto vs here on earth onely in the state of his humilitie and not also now being in heauen in the state of glory for sinfull man might thus reply True Christ was like our nature whilst he liued amongst vs but now being glorified he hath put off our nature and therefore we dare not presume to come vnto him Yes saith the Apostle he is still like vnto vs and hath not put off our nature but the infirmities of our nature onely which were the sequels of sinne as we also shall doe when we shall be translated into heauen after the resurrection And this Saint Luke more plainely auoucheth when he saith that after he had blessed them he departed from them and was carryed vp into heauen and that whilst they beheld he was taken vp by a cloude out of their sight Where we see plainely a locall motion of Christ from earth to heauen and therefore there must needs be of him a locall situation in the heauens As also Saint Peter in expresse words doeth affirme when he saith that the heauens must containe or receiue him vntill the time of restauration of all things Thus this doctrine is consonant to holy Scripture 11. Now let vs see how it was entertayned by the ancient Fathers thus they write Athanasius When Christ said I goe to the Father he spake of the humane nature which hee haed assumed for it is the propertie of him to goe and come who is circumscribed with certaine limits of places and forsaking that place where it was commeth to the place where it was not Nazianzene saith Wee professe one and the same Lord passible in the flesh impossible in his Godhead circumscribed in body vncircumscribed in deity the same both earthly and heauenly visible and inuisible comprehended in place and not comprehended Againe Christ as man is circumscribed and contayned in place Christ as God is vncircumscribed and contayned within no place Augustine saith Christ as man according to his body is in a place but as God filleth all places Cyril saith Though Christ hath taken from hence the presence of his body yet in the maiestie of his deitie hee is alwayes present Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ a locall Man of a Woman his mother who is the infinite God of God his Father Vigilius the Martyr Christ is in all places according to the nature of his deitie but is contayned in one place according to the nature of his humanity Damascene The difference of natures
changed into the body and bloud of Christ and that onely the accidents remaine I would faine know of them how these outward signes doe nourish the bodie can the accidents of bread and wine nourish the substance of the bodie must there not be a similitude and proportion betwixt the nourishment and the thing nourished but betwixt accidents and a substance there is no similitude nor proportion Aristotle telleth vs as much when he saith that Foode doth nourish as it is a substance and not as an accident Now if the outward signes doe not nourish the body what analogie is there betwixt them and the things signified or why were they ordayned to represent the spirituall refection of our soules by Christ if they minister no corporall refection vnto our bodies or how can they represent that where of they beare no similitude for as in Baptisme if the nature and substance of the water were taken away and onely accidents did remayne so that it could not wash nor clense the body without doubt it could be no fit signe to signifie the inward ablution of the soule by the bloud of Christ So they that take away the nature and substance of the Bread and Wine and leauâ— bare accidents make it without all question a dead and liuelesse Sacrament not fit to represent so high a mystery 19 Behold now the contradictions first accidents without a substance that is to say accidents and no accidents for therefore they are called accidents because they adhere and are ioyned to a substance in which they haue their subsistance vpon which they haue their dependance so that take away their substance and they presently â—urcease to bee accidents For Aristotle saith Accidentis esse est in esse The essence of an accident is to bee in a subiect Secondly two parts of the Sacraments the visible elements and the inuisible grace yet but one part of the same Sacrament for the elements bee taken away and accidents onely remayne therefore two parts and not two parts Thirdly the externall matter of the Sacrament is the outward elements and yet there are no elements at all and so elements and no elements matter and no matter Fourthly the outward elements are signes of the inward grace and the same by their doctrine being but accidents are signes of the outward elements which are signes of the inward grace and so they are signes of the signes rather then of the thing signified Lastly the outward feeding by bread wine represents the inward feeding by the body and bloud of Christ yet there is no outward feeding by bread and wine because there is no bread and wine except they will make accidents to â—eede a substance which is against all reason for the Philosopher saith that Ex iâ—sdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus wee are nourished by the same things of which we consist but we do not consist of accidents but of substances 20. Out of this snare they seeke to ridde themselues by a double euasion first they say that accidents may be without a subiect though not naturally yet by the supernaturall power of God This is Bellarmines and hee prooueth it by two instances first because Saint Basil affirmeth that That light which was created the first day was without a subiect and secondly because as the substance of Christs humanitie had no subsistance in it selfe but in the word so though an accident naturally doth inhere in a subiect yet supernaturally it may bee and yet not inhere To this I answere first that though Saint Basil be of that opinion yet Saint Augustine is not for he thought it to be a spirituall and no naturall light Nor Beda Lyranâ—s and the master of sentences who supposed it to be a bright and lightsome cloude which was carried about and gaue light vnto the world Nor Damascene who supposed that this light proceeded from the element of fire as an effect thereof Nor yet the Fathers who though they differed in their opinions touching this light yet none of them were of Saint Basils mind to thinke that it was an accident without a subiect Now why should we beleeue Saint Basil herein more then S. Augustine venerable Bede Damascene or the rest This therefore is but one priuate mans opinion crossed by many others and so maketh little for his purpose 21. Secondly I answere that though the humanitie of Christ had no subsistance in it selfe yet by reason of the vnion with the God-head it was sustained and vpholden by it but there is no such vnion betwixt the accidents in the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Christ that the body and bloud of Christ should sustaine and vphold those accidents and therefore they themselues say that they are not sustained by the body of Christ but by the extraordinary power of God and so this instance maketh nothing for this purpose neither Lastly I answere that we are not so much to consider what God can doe by his omnipotent power as what he hath done heretofore or what he hath said hee will doe hereafter let them therefore shew that accidents haue beene without a substance in times past or that God hath said hee will haue them so to be and then wee will yeeld vnto them but till then wee haue more reason to hold conclusions of nature not crossed by religion then to relye vpon supernaturall imaginations 22. The second euasion is by Aquinas who affirmeth that supernaturally the accidents of bread and wine may nourish because they receaue miraculously the strength and vertue of a substance and that they doe nourish he proueth because by the same reason they may be turned into the substance of the body by the which they are turned into ashes wormes and also because wee see by experience that the body is nourished by the signes in the Sacrament to which a short answere will suffice for first that there should be such a miraculous nourishing by accidents hath no ground either in experience or in Scripture And secondly he should rather conclude because the body is nourished by outward elements and they are often conuerted into ashes and wormes therefore they are not bare accidents but substances then that therefore bare accidents may nourish for let the reader iudge whether concludes more reasonably we when we say the elements doe nourish the body therefore they are bodily substances or they that thus reason the elements do nourish the bodie therefore accidents without a substance may nourish and thus the snare is not broken neither are they escaped 23. A fourth contradiction and that about the Sacrament they hold that the wicked and reprobate receaue the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and yet reape no benefit thereby to their owne soules but rather iudgement and damnation as if the merits grace and vertue of Christ could be separated from his person or as if a man could receaue life and yet not