liue sanctification and not be sanctified righteousnes and not be righteous redemption and not be redeemed for all these is Christ made vnto vs Life Righteousnes Sanctification and Redemption as the Scripture testifieth Bellarmine spendeth one whole Chapter in this argument to proue that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and therevpon expresly affirmeth that though they receiue him yet they receiue not his iustifying grace nor his merits nor the fruit and effect of his death and passion together with him Of the same mind is Aquinas the rest of their Diuines Now this position is contrary both to Scripture Fathers and to their owne diuinity To Scripture for our Sauiour saith in expresse words Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him But say they The wicked yea the reprobate eate the very flesh and drinke the very bloud of Christ Therefore conclude that they haue eternall life and dwell in Christ and Christ in them neither can they escape by saying that the spirituall eating of Christ by faith and not the eating in the Sacrament is here vnderstood seeing they doe all for the most part interpret this place of the Sacramentall eating and drinking but more plaine if it be possible is that of S. Iohn Ioh. 5. 12. He that hath the Sonne hath life and hee that hath not the Sonne of God hath not life From which place thus a man may reason He that hath Christ hath eternall life but hee that receiueth Christ verily truely as all the wicked do in the Sacrament by their doctrine hath Christ therefore the very reprobate euen Iudas himself hath eternal life is saued for either they must deny that they receiue Christ in the Sacrament or else they must grant being conuicted by these Scriptures that together with him they receiue eternall life 25. They reply to this two things first that the wicked receiue Christ onely Sacramentally and not Spiritually and therefore they haue no benefite by him and secondly because they receiue him vnworthily therefore they receiue their owne iudgement and not saluation not discerning the body and bloud of Christ To which I answere that though they receiue Sacramentally and vnworthily yet by their doctrine they receiue vâ—ry Christ and so by these Scriptures it must needs follow that they also receiue the fruite and effect of his death which is life and saluation Adde hereunto that the termes here vsed are generall both in respect of the persons that receiue and also the manner of receiuing without any such exception or distinction as they deuise and therfore I conclude that it is as impossible to make a separation betwixt Christ and his sauing grace as to separate the Sunne from light fire from heate or the soule from naturall life 26. Thus this position is an opposition to Scripture so it is also to the opinions of the Fathers To giue a taste of some two or three Origen saith That Christ is that true meat which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer which no wicked man can eat Augustine more effectually saith Hee that is in the vnity of Christs body that is a member of Christ he is truely said to eate Christs body and drinke his bloud Note hee saith truely to signifie that all other eate him falsly that is in shew and not in substance And in another place yet more plainely Hee which disagreeth from Christ doth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud though he take the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement Theodoret as plainely saith That Christ is meate for his owne sheepe onely that is his elect And Cyrill that as many as eate his flesh haue life in them being ioyned to him who is life it selfe And Basill saith that they which are fed with the foode of life to wit the bread that came downe from heauen haue an inward mouth of the minde whereby they eate that spirituall food Many more such like sayings might be heaped together to this purpose which for breuity sake I passe ouer all which are contrary to that Romish position that the wicked eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ which they must needs doe if the bread and wine after the words of consecration be changed into the very body and bloud of Christ 27. Lastly it is contrary to their owne diuinity for they hold that the parts of this Sacrament as of all others are two to wit the matter and the forme the forme in this Sacrament is to the whole word of consecration together with the sense thereof the matter is the whole element with the signification thereof As for example in the Eucharist the matter is the species of Bread and wine containing vnder them the body and bloud of Christ and the forme is for this is my bodie this is my bloud Now hence I thus reason The wicked either receiue the whole Sacrament or they receiue it not if they do then there is no difference betwixt the faithfull and them for they receiue no more and why should not they be saued then as well as they if they do not then either they receiue not Christ at all because we are sure they receiue the outward Elements and therfore if any thing be wanting it must needs be the thing signified or there are more parts then these two of the Sacrament Againe thus if the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet not the vertue of Christ then they receiue not the whole Sacrament because the vertue of the Sacrament is in the Sacrament as the vertue of euery thing is in the thing it selfe And so it followeth that the wicked in the Sacrament receiue Christ and yet not Christ the whole Sacrament and yet but a part of the Sacrament and that there are but two parts of it and yet more then two Obserue gentle Reader these contradictions and wonder 28. Againe Transubstantiation is contradicted both by the doctrine of adoration of Images and by the Canon of the Masse by the doctrine of adoration of Images thus they teach that diuine adoration is to be giuen to the pictures of Christ and God the Father because they represent their most excellent and diuine persons and yet they would haue the very body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament transubstantiated because some of the Fathers pretend â—o say that it is to be adored with diuine worship Now if it bee true that they say that Images of God the Father and of Christ our Sauiour ought to be adored with diuine worship because they represent their persons then it must bee false that therfeore the bodie and bloud of Christ are really and carnally in the Sacrament because it is to be worshipped for why may not those mysteries of bread and
Now to proue that the Scripture cannot be the iudge of Controuersies nor the Interpreter of it selfe they vse three chiefe reasons first because it hath diuers senses secondly because it is not able to speake but is mute and dumbe and thirdly because in euery well ordered Common-wealth the Law and the Iudge are distinguished and therefore seeing the Scripture is the law therefore it cannot be the Iudge 9. I answere to the first that it is not onely false but impious to affirme that the Scripture is as it were A nose of wax flexible into many senses as Melchior Canus affirmeth or that it may be dinersly expounded according to the occasion of the time as Cardinall Cusanus auerreth or that it is like a Delphian Sword to be conuerted into many senses as Turrian the Iesuite maketh it for as of one body there is but one soule so of one place of Scripture there is but one true sound sense which is the soule and life of it the words being but the flesh and the skinne that couereth the same and that true sense is that which the Spirit of God intendeth and not that which euery priuate spirit collecteth and deduceth out of the same as for the Tropologicall Anagogicall and Allegoricall senses they are not distinct senses of the Scripture but diuers collections and applications issuing out of one and the same sense all which may bee intended by the Holy Ghost vnder that one literall sense For example when an Allegory is deduced out of a place of Scripture as Saint Paul Gal. 4. 24. doth allegorize that History of Abrahams two Wiues it is not a double interpretation of that History but it is onely an Allegoricall application of it to the illustrating of the matter which he had in hand and so when by a tropologie a morall doctrine is deriued out of a text of Scripture as our Sauiour doth Math. 12. 41. 42. applying to the Iewes the repentance of the Niniuites and the long iourney of the Queene of Saba to see and heare Salomon or when as by a type any thing in Scripture is mystically expounded otherwise then the literall sense doth beare this is not a new sense but an accommodation of the right sense to another purpose which notwithstanding is intended by the spirit of God and this is confessed by diuers of their owne side Cornelius Agrippa thus writeth The Scripture hath but one simple and constant sense in which alone the truth is found And Aquinas thus It is the literall sense which the author of the Scripture intendeth which is God yet it is not inconuenient if in one letter of the Scripture according to the literall sense there bee many senses 10. But grant that there are diuers distinct senses of some few places of Scripture to wit one literall and another spirituall for in the most there is not yet there can be but one literall sense as many of the Iesuites themselues confesse and from that onely a forcible argument may be drawne as Bellarmine acknowledgeth and Vega another Iesuite except the mysticall sense be explaned and authorized by some other expresse place of Scripture as Salmeron Azorius Sixtus Senensis and Polidore Virgil auouch and proue the same by the testimonie of Augustine and Ierome Now then why should the multiplicity of senses barre the Scripture from being the Iudge of controuersies seeing no controuersie can effectually be decided by any other sense but by the literall which is euer one and the same or by the mysticall so farre forth as it is approued and declared by another Scripture which then becomes the literall sense of that place wherein it is expounded though it was spiritually included in the barke of the former from whence it was deriued This therefore is a most vaine and friuolous obiection 11. To the second that the Scripture is dumb and therefore cannot bee the Iudge because the Iudge of controuersies must haue a deciding and determining voyce I answere that this is blasphemy against the sacred word of God for if the Scripture bee an Epistle of the omnipotent God to his creature as Gregory calleth it what doth it but speake to them to whom it is sent He that writes a letter to his friend doth hee not speake vnto him and hee that reades his friends letter doth hee not vnderstand his meaning and intendment because the letter doth not vtter a voyce and he heareth not his friend himselfe Doth not euery man know that there is a double word verbum dictum a word spoken and verbum scriptum a word written the one being Imago cordis the Image of the minde the other Imago oris the Image of the speech True it is the Scripture doth not speake as man speaketh but yet it speaketh as the Law vseth to speake and God himselfe speaketh in the Scripture to them that haue eares to heare him and therefore in the Epistles to the Churches which were all written not spoken it is said Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches and is there any thing more common then these phrases what saith the Scripture doth not the Scripture say Yea and is not the Scripture called viâ—us Dei sermo the liuely word of God Heb. 4. 12. how can it speake if it bee dumbe how can it giue life if it be dead 12. This manifest truth Stapleton striueth to elude by a witty as he thinkes but indeed a witlesse distinction God saith he speaketh indeed by the Scripture but hee speaketh not vnto vs by them the Scripture is indeed the word of God but the Church is the voyce of God Which fond obiection our famous Country-man the scourge of Poperie Doctor Whitaker thus wipeth away If God speake in the Scripture then hee doth it either with himselfe or vnto some other but not with himselfe therefore to some other and if to some other to whom but vnto man for hee neither speaketh to Angels nor Deuils nor dumb creatures therefore onely to man as when he saith Thou shalt not kill or Loue your enemies there is no man so simple but hee perceiueth that God speaketh vnto man And therefore the Apostle saith that whatsoeuer things are written aforetime are written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might haue hope And so it is cleare that God by the Scripture not onely speaketh but speaketh vnto vs and so the Scripture is not onely the word of God but the voyce of God in it selfe as it proceeded from God the voyce of God to vs as we haue it by writing the word of God and the Epistle of the great King to his poore subiects whereby they are enformed of his will and pleasure and directed in the wayes of saluation 13. I but when the question is about the sense of a Text as of that Math. 16. 19. To thee will I giue the keyes
shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
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
with Hierome and Iustine Martyr and when he entred into the house the dores being shut that the dores and walls yeelded vnto him a passage as vnto their Creator with Theodoret and Cyrill and that when hee appeared vnto Paul going to Damascus if it was in the aire or on the earth as it may be doubted that then this body was not in heauen at the same instant for farre bee it from vs so to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens that he cannot be where he pleaseth And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expresse words which Bellarmine as expresly contradicteth 15. Thirdly by discourse of reason hee thus laboureth to reconcile these contradictions and thus disputeth God being but one simple and inuisible essence is in infinite places at once and he might create another world and fill it with his presence and be in two worlds at one instant and the soule of man is wholy in euery part of the body and God is able to conserue the soule in a part that is cut off from the body therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once againe one place may containe two bodies and yet be not two places but one as when Christ rose out of the graue the Sepulchre being shut therefore one body may be in two places at once and yet not two bodies but one Lastly there be many other mysteries of religion as strange and difficult to be conceiued as this and yet are beleeued therefore this also is to be beleeued as well as they 16. A miserable cause sure that needeth such defences the weakenesse of these reasons argueth the feeblenesse of the cause for who knoweth not but that there is no similitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body and that à posse ad esse from may bee to must bee is no good consequence Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies nor euer did except they were so vnited that in respect of place they made but one And lastly that all those mysteries of Religion which he nameth to wit the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection the Creation and Annihilation c. haue their foundation in holy Scripture and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth though transcending the spheare of nature and reason but this strange mysterie of Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture as he himselfe confesseth and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are without better reasons then he bringeth for the defence thereof but like lips like lettuces such as the cause is such are the defences both nought and weake as any man may see that is not muffled with errour and thus this second contradiction remaines irreconciliable 17. A third contradiction is also in and about the Sacrament which is this they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements and partly the thing signified and represented by them and that betwixt these there is a certaine relation and similitude as in Baptisme the outward signe which is water and the thing signified which is the bloud of Christ make the matter of that Sacrament or the outward wasting by water and the inward by the Spirit and the relation is as the water washeth and purgeth away all filthinesse of the body so Christs bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of sinne from the soule and so in the Eucharist the Elements of Bread and Wine together with the bodie and bloud of Christ are the matter of the Sacrament and the relation is as those elements doe feed nourish and strengthen and cheare the bodie of man so the body and bloud of Christ doe seed nourish and strengthen and cheare the soule vnto eternall life and as those elements must be eaten and digested or else they nourish not so Christ must also be eaten and as it were digested and after a sort conuerted into our substance or else he is no food vnto our soules This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome and it is agreeable to the truth for Bellarmine thus speaketh Species illae significant quidem cibum spiritualem sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis that is The signes in the Scrament signifie our spirituall foode but they are not the spirituall foode it selfe And in another place he saith that signum in Sacramento reisignatae similitudinem gerit The signes in the Sacrament doe beare the similitude of the thing signified And in the same Chapter hee sayth more plainely that God would neuer haue ordained one thing to signifie another vnlesse it had a certaine analogie or similitude with it And herein he accordeth with the Master of sentences who defines a Sacrament thus To be a visible forme of an inuisible grace bearing the Image of that grace And with Hugo who saith That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element propounded outwardly to the senses by similitude representing and by institution signifying and by Sanctification containing some inuisible and spirituall grace And that this relation is in eating and nourishing Bellarmine in another place confesseth in direct words when he saith that That same outward eating in the Sacrament doth signifie the inward eating and refreshing of the soule but is not the cause thereof and that that is so necessarie a condition that without it we should not be partakers of that diuine nourishment And to this agreeth Saint Augustine who plainely affirmeth that if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not Sacraments at all And what this similitude is he declareth in another place where hee saith that We receaue visible meate in the Sacrament but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reason why Bread and Wine are the fittest matter of this Sacrament because men most commonly are nourished therewith his words are these As water is assumed in the Sacrament of Baptisme to the vse of spirituall washing because corporall washing is commonly made by water so bread and wine wherewith most commonly men are nourished are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the vse of the spirituall eating By which it followeth that if water did not wash it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptisme so if bread and wine doe not nourish they are no fit signes for the Lords Supper and for this cause our Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament gaue this commandement to his Disciples that they should take and eate and the Apostle calleth it the Lords Supper and the Lords Table 18. This therefore is their own doctrine and it is grounded vpon the truth But listen a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monster Transubstantiation for when they say that the substance of the bread and wine is vtterly
meates and that from all in generall and that to this end for the castigation and mortification of the body and not eyther for merite sake or that it is a thing vnlawfull or that wee may glut our selues with some kinde and may not so much as touch others vpon paine of heresie which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome This is all that S. Augustines words import which as they doe not deliuer them from opposition to the Gospell so they manifestly imply these two conclusions first that the Synagogue of Rome is not the Church of God for it forbiddeth marriage to Priests not as a lesser good but as a thing simply euill And secondly that they maintaine in this their Church that doctrine which of S. Paul is called The doctrine of Diuels for they forbid both Meates and Marriage at some times and to some persons as things sinfull and vnlawfull And whereas the Fathers almost in generall say that it is better for such as haue vowed continency to marry then to fall into the fire of lust they conclude filthily to their eternall disgrace It is better for a Priest to play the whoremonger and keepe a Concubine then after his vow of continency to be coupled in wedlocke 39. But Bellarmine couereth her nakednesse whereof he is as it seemeth some what ashamed with a figge leafe of a distinction for he saith that fornication is not simply better then marriage but in respect that a man hath before entred into a vow in which regard to marry after the vow is a greater sinne then to commit fornication and this hee proueth by an example from a married woman whose husband is eyther continually absent or sicke so that hee cannot performe the marriage debt vnto her It is not sayd vnto her It is better to marry then to burne but shee ought to keepe her faith to her husband and by fasting and prayer keepe vnder and tame the concupiscence of her nature and therefore saith hee that precept or permission Let him marry is not spoken to all but only to such as are free and not if they be bound and haue giuen their faith vnto God 39. To which I answere two things First I aske him whether this vow which 〈◊〉 talke of be onely against marriage or against all manner of incontinency If they say that it is the vow of chastitie and that it is against all manner of incontinency then how can it bee that it should bee broken more by marriage then by fornication by hauing a wife then by keeping a whore and that to marry in respect of the vow should be a greater sinne then to commit whoredome especially seeing marriage is Gods ordinance and fornication of the Diuels institution that an honourable and holy estate and this a filthy and vgly sinne If they say that the vow is against marriage onely then what a Religion is Popery that teacheth her people to vow against marriage and not against fornication against wiues and husbands but not against whores and varlets Surely that Religion that maintaineth this cannot be of God 40. Secondly to his example I answere Marriage cannot be inioyned to her that is married already albeit her husband bee eyther absent or impotent for that is contrary to Gods ordinance Mal. 2. 14. Mat. 19. 5. But the vow of single life is not Gods ordinauce especially in so high a degree as marriage is for at the most it is but a Council whereas the other is a flat Precept to all that cannot containe and besides they that are married may expect the blessing of God vpon them vsing the meanes for their restraint in a godly manner and begging continency at Gods hand because they are in a calling ordayned by God but they that are in a vow who either enter rashly or are thrust in against their wills and contrary to Gods Commandement not being able to abstaine but proudly presume vpon their owne strength how can they hope for Gods blessing vpon them to strengthen them against the temptations of the flesh And thus this example together with the distinction it selfe maketh no whit to the iustifying of their doctrine but that it still remayneth in plaine contrariety and opposition to the Gospell of Iesus Christ 41. The Gospell teacheth that there is one true and solide foundation vpon which the Church of God is built 〈◊〉 to wit our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ But the Romish congregation cryeth out that Peter and the ordinary succession of Popes and the Church of Rome is the foundation of the whole Church and that the Church is built vpon them and not vpon Christ alone 42. Bellarmine distinguisheth of foundations and saith that Christ is the primary and principall foundation of the Church but that doth not hinder but that there may be secundary foundations and for proofe thereof he alledgeth Ephes 2. 20. where it is said that we are built the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and Apoc. 11. 14. where the twelue Apostles are made the twelue foundations of the Church 43. To which I answere three things First that though it be trueâ—â— that the Apostles bee the secundary foundations of the Church layd vpon Christ the true Rocke and foundation as twelue goodly stones and that vpon them the Church is built to wit vpon Christ primarily and principally and vpon them secundarily yet it doth not take away the Antithesis of their doctrine to the Gospell for they say that Peter is the onely secundary foundation and that hee as the chiefest stone is layd next vnto Christ and the rest of the Apostles built immediately vpon him and mediately by him vpon Christ But those Scriptures say that the twelue Apostles are twelue precious stones laid one by one vpon Christ and not one vpon another and twelue foundations equally proportioned to each other and not one placed vpon the top of another and so it is true that as the prerogatiue of the onely singular foundation belongeth to Christ so the honour of being secundary foundations is equally deuided among the twelue Apostles and so Peter in this respect hath no greater prerogatiue then the rest And therefore this distinction deliuers them not from the snare seeing that it maketh all the twelue Apostles altogether ioynt-foundations of the Church and they would haue Peter to bee the onely foundation next vnto Christ vpon whom both the Church of God and the Apostles themselues are built 44. Secondly I answere that when the Apostles are said to be foundations of the Church it is not meant of their persons but of their doctrine as witnesse almost all the Fathers for concerning person it is true which Saint Paul saith No man can lay any other foundation beside that which is layd Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. 11. But the Romanists would not haue the doctrine of Peter but the person of Peter to be this foundation and for proofe thereof Bellarmine fetcheth this argument from the
learned and iudicious Diuine of their owne confesseth in the originall tongue of Chrysostome it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shee which is also agreeable to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines of the Bible O but because this reading in the translated Copie maketh for the worship of the Virgin Mary therefore in our Iesuites diuinitie it must be preferred The second is out of Chrysostome too in his Sermon of Inuentius and Maximus whom Bellarmine to proue that the relickes of Saints ought to be worshipped bringeth in thus speaking tumulos Martyrum adoremus let vs worship the sepulchres of Martyrs whereas indeede the word in Chrysostome is adornemus let vs adorne and garnish their sepulchres as both the originall Greeke and the Latine translations that are of any standing doe read it The third is of Cyril who is not onely changed and altered but plainly dismembered by them for whereas hee writeth thus excellently concerning the power of faith This faith which is the gift and grace of God is sufficient to clense and purge not onely them which find themselues somewhat ill but also those which are verie dangerously diseased c. The Spanish Index hath censured him and commanded these words to bee blotted out with this peremptorie charge Extextu deleantur illa verba The fourth and last is of Cyprian in his Booke De bono patientiae where for gustatam Eucharistiam they read to maintaine the idolatrous circumgestation of the Eucharist gestatam contrarie to their owne copies as on the contrarie in Leo ser 14. de passione for gestemus Bellarmine readeth gustemus and thus they turne Cat in panne as the Prouerbe saith and with the Apothecaries art put quid pro qu◠103. Thus they handle the Fathers putting words into their mouths that they neuer spake nor meant and that in no few places of their writings And as for later Writers their Iudices Expurgatorij are sufficient testimonies of their purging expunging wiping out and foysting in what they list into their Bookes it is a profest allowed and maintained practice of theirs which at the first was kept in darknesse as a worke of darknesse by secret conueyance but after that by Gods prouidence it came to light is now publikely defended as a thing not onely lawfull and commendable in it selfe but also profitable for the Church of God so that there needs no further proofe of their forgerie and falsification in this kind seeing we haue confitentes aduersaries Onely for a conclusion let vs a little consider the reasons that are vsed by these good men for the defence of this their dealing 104. One May an English Priest out of Gretzer Posseuine the author as it is supposed of the grounds of the old and new Religion in the latter end of that Booke taking vpon him to answere Master Crashaw that laid to their charge the same crime that I now doe answereth three wayes First that it is a practice both lawfull and commendable Secondly that if it be vnlawfull we are more guiltie of it then they And lastly though they meddle with new Writers yet the Fathers workes are sincere and free from all corruption 105. To whom I reply briefly thus that as touching his last answere which concerneth the Fathers it is manifestly false as I haue alreadie discouered in foure particulars and is by Doctor Iames in his Booke in many more and I doubt not but shall be more fully ere long made knowne to the world and therefore though that there was no rule prescribed by the Councell of Trent for the purging of the Fathers as of yonger Writers Yet it followeth not but that they might doe it without rule which also Gretzer the Iesuite perceiuing to be true seeketh to mend the matter by a fine distinction by which indeed he matres it vtterly and that is that the Fathers workes as they are Fathers need no purging but being considered as Sonnes their words may bee corrected and censured by the Church or not as Fathers but as Fathers-in-law for when they feed the Church with sound and wholsome doctrine they are Fathers if otherwise Fathers-in-law thus by this fine distinction he granteth that when a Father speaketh any thing which they account false doctrine he may be corrected or rather corrupted for then they esteeme him not a Father but a sonne nor a true Father but a Father-in-law so that it is apparently false which our new Author affirmeth that none of the Fathers are corrected by them 106. Secondly touching his middle answere that if it be a fault we are more guiltie thereof then they I answere that that is as false as the former for let it bee granted that some Bookes are corrected by some Protestants yet first they are the deeds of priuate persons and not the acts of the Church not at all approued much lesse authorized by the Church as theirs are nay all of sounder iudgement in our Church doe asmuch condemne that practice in our owne as in any else Secondly such corruptions or corrections are not frequent with vs but rare and seldome I dare boldly say for one place altered by vs in any Writer there are twentie by them as their owne expurging Iudices doe beare witnesse and for this I challenge any Iesuite or Romish Priest whatsoeuer to the encounter Thirdly most of those Bookes which they lay to our charge to haue beene corrupted by vs as Augustines Meditations Granadoes Meditations The conuersion of a Sinner The Christian Directorie Osianders Enchiridion with other more are not corrected in the originall themselues but in their translations into our Language some things are left out some added some changed and altered as the Translators thought good whereas they corrupt the verie Texts and originall Copies of most Writers without difference Fourthly we seldome alter or change any Booke in the translation but withall we eyther confesse in the beginning of the said Bookes or professe in the publishing of the same this correction or alteration but they haue practised this in secret by certaine Enquisitors appointed to that purpose the mysterie of which art was long hid from the World and had still lien in darknesse had not the prouidence of God for the good of the Church first discouered the Belgicke Index by mere accident to that godly and bright starre of our Church Iunius who made it presently knowne to the world and at this day few there are that vnderstand the mysteries of that art so closely and cunningly doe they conuay their matters as for the Books themselues they do seldome or neuer acknowledge their correction in the forefront and beginning of them as wee doe but by all meanes labour to hide and conceale the same Lastly though some amongst vs haue more rashly then wisely falsified some Writers of lesser note in some few things yet they haue not meddled with the Fathers nor Councels neither haue
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all