The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread but with a secret benediction unknowne to us whereby he Transsubstantiâ—â— the bread into his Bodie of which the Evangelists maketh mentieÌ„ when they say that he tooke bread and blessed it so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing before he said this is my bodie that so that speech of his might be true The 3. is That our Saviour by these words this is my bodie made that coÌ„version of bread into his bodie but ttha be spoke these words twise though it be written but once and that first he spoke them softlie and unheard whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion And the 4. opinion is That by these words this is my Bodie which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie 5. Herin again they greatly controvert to wit whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion 1. Some say as Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect 47. with others That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of this is my Bodie 2. Others say That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmin sayeth The whole Church holdeth lib. 3. de justifi cap. 8. whose words are these The Sacrament without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament 3. Lombard their great Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 13. sayeth That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie Whose words are these It is called the Masse because of the comming of the heavenlie Angell sayeth hee to consecrate the bodie of Christ according to the Priests prayer saying Omnipotent God command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar therefore except the Angel come it cannot be called a Masse sayth he seing therefore as Bellarmin hath told us that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentioÌ„ and that no man can know the intention of another sayth Bellar. farr lesse be sure of an Angels coÌ„ming downe to comsecrate the bread turne it into Christs body I would theÌ„ on these grounds of their own ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body or onely a piece of bread which were most grosse Idolatrie as all must confess 6. To come to the words of consecration themselves 1 in generall next in particular let us see how they agree heerein 1. The most common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie and not figuratiuely but on the contrarie Bertram and the others with him forecited as also Cardinall Cajetan in 3. q. 78. art 1. holdeth that they are and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of speech as wee see in Circumcision and the Passover yea more in the Popes owne canon Law de consecra dist 2. c. hoc est it is said ther That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie representeth Christs flesh is called Christs Bodie but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing sayeth that place but by a mysticall signification so that the meaning is sayth the glosse it is called Christs Bodie that is it is a sign of his bodie 7. Next to come to the words in particular 1. The Catholicks do not agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucâ— cap. 11 in the manner of explicating what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne hoc or this in the words of consecration this is my Bodie in this there are two famous opinions sayth he the one that this pronowne hoc signifieth the Body of Christ the other is of S. Thomas sayeth he that it signifieth not the body of Christ precisâ—ie nor yet the bread as some hold but in coÌ„mon that substance be what it will which is under these formes so that the meaning is hoc this that is under this and thâ—se formes or accidents is my bodie Neither determinating it to the bread says Biel in can Missae lect 48. because so this speech should be false this bread is my Bodie nor to the bodie of Christ for this were absurd to say this bodie is my bodie sayeth he as also seing the vertue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word meum as Biel showeth in the same place therefore by hoc Christs bodie cannot bee understood Againe the same Biel in the place forecited sayeth that concerning this there are diverse opinions which he reduceth to two 1. That by hoc nothing at all is demonstrat and this Durand also declareth lib. 4. rat divin f. 64. 2. Some say that by hoc the bread is demonstrat so that the meaning should bee this bread is my bodie that is in a Sacramentall way the signe of my bodie But because this would seeme sayeth he to be hereticall therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore that it is a mixt demonstration partlie to the sense partlie to the understanding so that the meaning is this in which the bread which is seene is to be transsubstantiat is my bodie which must be believed and so the word is must be expounded in the future shall be this is likewise the opinioÌ„ of Richardê° de media villa and others but Alexander Ales expreâ—slie will haue by hoc the bread to bee demonstrat and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration 8. They controvert no lesse likewise in the next words corpus meum or my bodie as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and impassible to these who say the first it is objected that then sayeth heâ— it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible and that the Masse is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice Againe in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and impassible bodie it is likewise objected that this coâ—ld not be because his Bodie did afterward suffer and die being yet unglorified and therefore was mortall and passible Therefore sayeth Biel Hugo Cardinalis being straitned on both hands by the former contradictions concludeth for his part siding with neither of them saying That in this questioÌ„ as in such like others I professe sayeth hee that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets and in simplicitie of faith I think this sufficient if we say that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give because Hee was Omnipotent And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was and useth a short easie way to solve all questions 9 In the words also that followeth which is broken
1. with the forenamed Theodoret dial 1. That our Saviour heerby honoured the visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood not changing their nature sayeth he but adding grace to nature And so likewise speaketh Pope Gelasius against Eutyches de duabus Christi naturis 2. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 12. Tertullian cont Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. and Eusebius de demonstratione evangelii lib. 8. in fine and many more fathers expoundeth these words This is my bodie that is a signe and symbole therof 3. The Popes own canon law Gratians glosse theron dist 2. de consecra c. hoc est expoundeth these words thus The heavenly sacrament which truly representeth Christs flesh is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherfore it is called so after the owne manner not that it is so trulie but in a signifying Mysterie so that the meaning is sayeth the glosse on the former words it is called the body of Christ that is a signe of Christs bodie As for the testimonies of Fathers he citeth Ambrose wher he sayth It is bread before the words of consecration but after of bread it is made the flesh of Christ To which I answere 1. That hee perverteth Ambrose words which are these It was not Christs bodie before consecration but I say to thee that after consecration it is Christs bodie 2. In the same place be explaines himself showing that the substance of bread remaineth not withstanding the change is only sacrameÌ„tal so that it is the flesh of Christ only in a sacramental way Therfore sayeth hee Christs blessing is of that force ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur that is that the Elements they remaine in substance what they were before and yet they are changed into another thing And illastrateth this change by this simile Thou thy selswas saith he but thou was an old creature but after that thou art consecrat thou began to be a new creature Now I hope no man will say that by regeneration or our consecrating to Gods service we are changed in substaÌ„ce but in quality from a sinfull diâ—position to a more holie And in his fourth book of the sacrameÌ„ts cap. 5. he therfore calleth the consecrated bread The figure of Christs bodie wherby the same is represented to us So that this conversion abolisheth not the things that were as we see in Theodoret but maketh them to be in a sacred use what before they were not His second testimonie is out of an obscure and late Monck whom he calleth S. Remigius saying That Christs flesh the consecrated bread are one bodie but telleth not where he speaketh so neither doeth it prove any conversion of the substance of the bread into Christs flesh but that these two are one by a sacramentall union As for other fathers whom he onlie citeth but setteth not down their words none of them proveth any popish transsubstanciation yea Justin Martyr whom he citeth apol 2. his words overthrowes the same saying only That the sacramentall bread is not coÌ„mon bread wherby our flesh and blood is nourished which is not done by Christs bodie it being onelie the food of the soule 40 THat we ought to receive under both kiâ—ds and that one alone is not â—ufficient VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iohn 6. 51. where Christ sayeth If any man shall eat of this bread he shall live for ever heer sayeth he life ever lasting is promised to him that eateth of the bread onlie To whom I answere 1. as I shew before in my answere to the same place a number of famoê° RomaÌ„ists declareth that ther is no speech of sacramentall eating in that chapter and in particular Cardinall Cusanus epist ad Bohemos p. 858. when he hath affirmed the same and that the spirituall feeding only on Christ by faith is ther set down he concludeth thus Et â—aec est necessaria omnium Doctorum sententia sayeth he 2. If this were spoken of sacramentall eating then al who receive not the sacrament as childreÌ„ before ripe age who die should be damned because our Saviour sayeth verse 53. Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood yee haue no life in you 3. We see heere drinking of his blood as necessâ—rie requiâ—ed as the eating of his flesh which is against their depriving of people of the sacramentall cup. The second place is Luke 24. 30. Christ at Emaus sayeth he communicated his disciples under one kind To which I answere That the Evangelist speaketh there onlie of ordinarie refection as he did Mat. 14. 19. which is heere called The breaking of bread Therefore sayeth their own Carthusian He took bread and blessed it but did not convert it into his bodie sayeth he but onlie as his custome was to blesse meat whence also sayeth their owne Iansenius coÌ„cord c. 146. p. 249 Ther ar sâ—me who from this place would take an argument sayeth he to prove that it is lawfull under one kind to give or receive the sacrament of the Eucharist which opinion is neuher certaâ—ne nor hath it liklie-hood of irueth sayeth he And as for the nâ—vâ—lâ—ie of this half communion which Pope Gelasius calleth sacriledge part 3. decret de consecra d. 2. there Alfonsus a Castro showeth the same sit Euch. § ultima haeres p. 120. Cassander also telleth us Consult art 22. That it was not in the Roman Church till Aquinas time anno 1265. and is not in the greek church sayeth he untill this day Wherefore wee conclude in Bellarmin's words lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 7. § quia vero That it cannot be doubted but that it is best to bee done which Christ did and we know that Christ said to his disciples representing sayeth Cassander the persons of all faithfull Communicants drink yee all of this as the Apostle also speaketh accordinglie 1. Cor. 11. 28. And therfore as for their fiction of concomitance wherby they would elude these words I will oveâ— throw the same onlie by their bishop Iansenius words concord cap. 59 p. 389. saying It doth not easilie appeare how the outward taking of the bread alone can be called drinking for it is rightlie called eating because ther is somthing taken there by way of meate but how can that be called drinking sayth he where there is nothing taken by way of drink 41 THat ther is not in the church a true and propitiatorie Sacrifice of the Masse VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Malach. 1. 11. where the Lord sayeth That in every place incense shall be offered to his Name a pure offering To which I answer 1. That Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 20. and Tertullian lib. 4. adv Marcion As also Theodoret on this place expoaes this pure offering to be the spirituall sacrifices of prayer thanksgiving 2. Hugo Cardinalis as also their own lyra showes that the Lord would heerby give the jewish priests to know that spirituall sacrifices were to succeed thereto which were carnall and in
counterfite For example In the matter of purgatorie hee citeth Ambrose upon 1. Cor. 3. whereas Bellarmin De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis testifieth That these are thought not be his works and not without cause sayeth hee Againe for Sacramentall Coufession he citeth Clements Epistles which Bellarmine in his Book of Ecclesiasticall Writters declareth and proveth to be counterfit 2. Hee citeth some works of Fathers which are not in rerum natura for example For invocation of Saynts he citeth ATHANASIUS Serm. de Annunciatione where-as there is no such piece either in his works or in Bellarmins index which he hath set downe of his works in his Book of ecclesiasticall writters Againe For works of Supererogation he citeth Gregorie Nicen. 1. Morals cap. 5. Whereas he never write any such book or is it to be found 3. Hee citeth some places of Fathers for him who in these places are clear against him For example for Mans abiiitie to keepe the Law hee citeth Jerome his third book against the Pelagians whereas in that whole booke throughout hee stronglie proveth the contrar 4. Hee citeth some places in Fathers so generallie and looslie that it were impossible to find out such wherat he he aimeth For example For worshipping of Images he citeth Jerom in his Epistle to Marcella whereas Jerom write many Epistles to Marcella in none of which is any such thing to be found 2. concerning predestination hee citeth Augustin lib. 1. de Civit Dei but no Chapter or words wheras ther are 36. Chapters in that book In likemanner he citeth for the same purpose Ambrose lib. 2. de Cain Abell but no Chapter wheras there are ten in that book 3. Against Assurance of Salvation he citeth Jerom lib. 2. adv Pelag. but no Chapter whereas there are eleven long Chapters in it 4. For extreame Vnction he citeth Augustin in speculo but no Chapter wheras there ar 33. Chapters in that book I could instance a number more were not to avoid prolixitie wherby any indifferent mā may see how fraudulentlie these men deale by a false Muster of Scriptures and Fathers to delude the simple make them beleeve that both these ar on their side whereas I shall showe Godwilling that there is no such thing and whatsoever is set down in this TOUCH-STONE to be either grossly mistaken willfully perverted slanderously imputed or so weaklie performed that he hath relyed not so much on the strength of his Cause as on the weaknes tractablenes of his simple and ungrounded Proselyts whom they perswade fide implicit◠to take all upon Trust and Beleeve as the Church beleeveth and that they are the Church contrar to that Berean practise Act. 17. 11. And that Apostolicall precept 1. Ioh. 4. 1. Beloved Beleeue not every Spirit but try the spirits whether they bee of God because many false Prophets are gone out in the World at whose credulity I could not but wonder how they can be catched in such Cobweb snares and be seduced by such weake arguments in the time of Gospell-light and means of resolution were not that as the Apostle speaketh 2. Thess 2. 10. That they are given over by the deceivablenes of unrighteousnes to beleeve lies because they received not the loue of the Truth and therefore as BHRNARD sayeth of such Serm. 66. in CANTICA They are not convinced with reason because they understand not nor by Authorities to wit of Scripture becaus they receiue them not sayeth he nor are they moved by perswasion because they are perverse and yeeldeth not For all which notwithstanding my heartie wish shall be that as the LORD did to PAULL Act. 9. 18. the scales of errour and ignorance may likewise fall from their eyes that GOD may haue Glory His Church joy in their conversion their owne soules salvation in the Day of their account Amen AN ANSWER To A Popish PAMPHLET Called The Touch-Stone of the Reformed Gospell AND. 1. To the Preface IN the Preface the Pamphletter First glorying that hee confoundeth Us by our own Bible most impudentlie First beginneth with a Generall accusing of the Translation thereof in a number of grosse corruptions and falsifications wherof notwithstanding he instances not one nor is able to do Wherunto therefore I shall answer not onely by retortion in the generall but in particulare shall instance in their vulgare Latine Translation whereof Hee speaketh and so much extolleth as free of the like First Grosse corrupting of the Text contrary to the Originall 2 Adding to the Text of Scripture 3. Taking from the same both contrar to that sad commination Revel 22. 19. and 4. which is worst of all cleare contradicting of Scripture and in place of a Multitud of each sort I shall onelie for brevities sake bring a few examples 1. Then of corrupting Scripture Gen. 3. 15. where it is spoken of Christ as the seed of the woman It shal bruise thy head It is said in their vulgare Translation Shee shal bruise thy head blasphemouslie as their use is ascribing to the virgin Marie the victorie over Satan in the work of our Redemption VVhich is only proper to CHRIST Likewise Heb. 13. 16. where it is said of Doing good and communicating that with such sacrifices God is well pleased In their Translatiō for establishing of the merit of works it is said For with such sacrifices God is promerited also Rom. 1. 4. wher it is said That CHRIST was declared to bee the Sonne of GOD It is said in their Translation that Hee was predestinat to be the Sonne of GOD. which is a lurd errour 2. Of adding to Scripture Act. 5. 15. is adduced in this Touch-ston to prove miraculous vertue of Reliques to which these words are added which are not in the Original That they might be delivered frō their infirmities Next unto these words of our Saviour Math. 26. 26. This is my Bodie In their conjuring of consecrating of the bread they add a fift word enim or for VVhich they make operative in producing their Transsuhstantiation And the fyve words to be answereable to such mysteries as Gabriel Biel hath set downe in the like number of fyve in his 38. lecture of the Canon of the Masse Fol. 65. 3. Of taking from the Scripture ps 99. 5. It is said according to the originall Worship at His Footstoole as it is in likemanner said verse 9. Worship at His holie Hill and yet in their Translation for the maintayning of their adoration of images they take out the word at and say Worship yee His footstoole Next Rom. 11. 6. the words But if it bee of works then no more of grace otherwise work is no more work ar in their Translation quyte purged out because they make so clearlie against their Iustification by works Againe Heb 1. 3. it is said having by himself purged our sinnes in their Translation these words by Himself are taken out to make place thereby to mens satisfactions Likewise Math. 9. 13. where it is said I came not to
furth under the little Hostie Than which what can be grosser blasphemie let any man judge 1. In this point theÌ„ let us see what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their transsubstantiation Which is commonlie alleadged to bee expresse scripture and in particular these words Math. 26. 26. this is my Bodie but concerning this Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 40. sayeth Whether Christs Bodie in the Sacrament be by conversion or without any conversion the substance and accidents of bread still remaining is not found expreslie in the canon of the Bible nor can it be proven by any scripture sayeth bishope Fisher cont Captiv Babyl num 8. Cardinall Cajetan likewise affirmeth as witnesseth Suarez tom 3. disp 46. That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transsubstantiation but that they may be taken in a figurative sense as these 1. Cor. 10. 4. Cajet 3. q. 78. art 1. yea Cardinall Bellarmin speaketh thus lib. 3. de Euch. c 23. It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of scripture which without the Churches determination can evidentlie inforce a maÌ„ to admitt of Transsubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie to believe the same yet it may be justly doubted whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the same sayeth he seing the most sharp witted learned men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrarie 2. Wee haue sundrie Roman Catholicks who haue denyed Transsubstantiation upon any ground whatsoever as 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Bodie and Blood of Christ written to Charles the bald King of France about the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus aâ— Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist which is also extant 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canterburie in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housell as he calleth it anno 996. and yet to ascend higher Gelasius a Pope in his treatise against Eutyches of the two natures of Christ where he sayeth Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a divine thing to wit the Bodie blood of Christ yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine sayeth he and Biel on the canon of the Masse telleth us that in his time concerning the sacrament or any conversion therein amongst Catholicks there were four opinions wherof the first was That the substance of bread remained still sayeth hee 3. In the manner or sort of conversioÌ„ which they pretend to be in the sacrament Papists they varie and disagree mightilie For 1. Bellarmin telleth us lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11. that Durand holdeth That one essentiall part of the bread namlie the forme is turned but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach sayeth Durand Rational Divin lib. 4. f. 63. but others haue taught the contrarie sayth Bellarmin That the matter of the bread is turned into Christs Bodie but that the essentiall forme remaineth but as for Lombard their great Master of senteÌ„ces his words are these lib. 4. sent d. 11 If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is whether formal or substantiall or what other sort it is definire non sufficio saieth hee that is I am not able to define it and so he quyteth the matter Biel againe on the canon of the Masse lect 40. he sayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this conversion The First That the substance of the bread remaineth still together with Christs Bodie The 2. is That the substance of the bread remaineth not still but after consecration becometh the body of Christ The 3. is That tho the bread remains not yet the accidents of bread as weight colour taste remaineth and that Christs Bodie begineth to be under these accidents And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former That neither doeth the substance of bread remaine nor yet is it converted into Christs bodie for the absurdities that follow theron but is annihilat or redacted to nothing or else resolved into that which they call materia prima Bellarmin also in the forecited place sayeth that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverse from all the former to wit That the bread is personallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by him and of this also Cardinall Aliaco in 4. sent q 6 sayeth That this is possible and more agreable to reason and easier to bee understood But thereafter in the same place hee positivlie sayeth That the conversion of the bread according to his judgement into the bodie of Christ is successive as the night is turned into the day because as after the night the day commeth so sayeth he after the breads departing there is Christs Bodie But Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. § ex his will not haue this coÌ„version productive nor successiue but adductive as hee calleth it that is whereby Christs Bodie preexistent before this conversion in heaven beginneth to be sayeth hee under the accidents of bread wher it was not before which indeed is no conversion at all but onlie a meere translocation Moreover sayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. There hath been two opinions devysed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this mysterie one of DuraÌ„ds on 4. sent d. 10. who holdeth it probable that the substaÌ„ce of the bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatnes or quantitie another is of some ancient Divines whom Ockam followeth who say that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Christs bodie which notwithstanding they think cannot bee distinguished from the substance therof but that all parts do so runne one in another that ther is no shape in Christs bodie nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof But the common opinion of the Schooles and of the Church sayeth hee is contrarie to this and that in the Eucharist or little hostie there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bigness all other accidents hath both order shape agreable to a humane bodie Which is the eight miracle of the eleaveÌ„ that Durand maketh the priest daylie to work in the Masse lib. 4. ration divin f. 63. which miracles notwithstanding are not seene whereas Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. sent q. 5. saâ—eth I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle sayeth hee except I see the same And indeed these are such as are foreprophecied 2. Thess 2. 9. and are called lieing signes and wonders 4. They agree no better in this point to wit Wherby did Christ produce in his last supper Transsubstantiation Concerning which their Biel on the canon of the masse lect 36. sayeth There are four opinions The 1. That Christ did make this conversion not by any words which hee uttered but by his divine power without any words and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this minde
will not leaue my soul in hel To which I answere 1. Their Arias Montanus in his interlineall Bible approven by the Universitie of Lovan and printed at Antuerp 1572. translates that place of the 16. psalout of which this of the Act. is taken thus Non derelinques animam meam in sepulâ—hro And Isidorus clarius on this place speaketh thus according to the Hebrew phrase the soule is put for the bodie which he was not to leaue in the grave And Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 12. grantes that the hebrew word nephesh or anima is a generall word which somtimes signifieth the bodie as is cleare sayth he by many parts of scripture Wherof he instances one Gen. 37. 21. where Ruben sayth to his brehren concerning Joseph Non interficiamê° animaÌ„ ejus where the word anima is not taken for the soule properlie so called nor by a Trope for the man himself but properlie for his flesh or bodie sayeth he and as Nephesh somtimes signifieth the bodie so in the same sense is the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the septuagint Levit. 21. 1. 11. 2. The hebrew word Sheol also is taken two wayes in scripture to wit either for the receptacle of the corporall part of man after death and so it signifieth the graue which is not onlie called in the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1. Cor. 15. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O graue where is thy victorie orelse it is taken for the receptacle of the spirituall part or soule of man after death and thus being taken it is translated Hell and then onlie and ever it signifieth the place of the damned out of which there is no deliverie as Augustin showeth at length in his 99. Epistle to Evodius and for probation that the word Sheol is taken for both these forenamed receptacles Their own Lyra's words on psal 114. are these In the hebrew sayth he for INFERNUS is put SHEOL which doth not onlie signifie Hell but also the graue as wee also see Gen. 42. 38. Job â—7 13. and psal 141. 7. A third exposition Romanists give of the word Sheol or Infernus signifying there by the estate of the dead in generall under the power of death whereof Peter speaketh Act. 2. 24. and thus doth their Jansenius expound in Prov. 15. 11. and Genebrard in psal 88. 48. Thus the words being cleared by Romanists theÌ„selves 1. then whither the meaning be this Thou will not leaue my bodie in the graue according to Arias Montanus translation of psal 16. 10. relating so to Christs resurrection which is the Apostles purpose to prove or 2. whither the meaning be Thou will not leaue mee under the power of death as Jansenius expoundeth or 3. whither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or soule be taken for the spirituall part of man and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hell for the place of the damned yet howsoever I say the words be taken in any of the three former senses they shall never prove any popish Limbê° or any desceÌ„se of Christs soul thither because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Infernus when it is taken for the grave or that which is in place thereof as Gen. 43. 38. and Ionah 2. 2. It ever signifieth the place of the damned as both scripture showeth and Augustin forecited and I hope that papists themselves will never say that the soules of the Patriarchs went down thither Moreover coÌ„cerning the descense of Christs soule to hell Romanists themselves disagree thus 1. Scotus in 1. sent dist 11. q. 1. disclaimeth any warrant in the gospell for it 2. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo c. affirmeth that Christs soul descended locally to the place of the damned 3. Aquinas denyeth this as Bellar. showeth in the same place and sayeth that he onlie descended locallie to that part of hell which is called Limbus 4. Durand mantaineth that Christs soule descended to no part of hell locallie but virtualie onlie and by effect seing the scripture sayeth he distinguisheth nowise the hell of the damned froÌ„ any other place otherwise saith Durand in 3. sent dist 22. q. 3. his soule had beene in two places together seing he said to the theef on the Crosse this day thou shall be with me in Paradise And which virtuall descending of Christ into hell ProtestaÌ„ts likewise acknowledge Chamier speaking thus lib. 5. de Christo cap. 3. Moreover sayeth hee when we say Hee descended into hell we signifie therby the efficacie of Christs death wherby he overcame hell The fruit of which victorie not only appertaineth to them who were to come after but also to them who had long gone before sayeth hee The third place is 1. Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh but quickned by the spirit by which also hee went preached to the spirits in prison Which he sayth wer the Fathers in Limbê° To which I answer That this place proveth no descending of Christs soule to Limbus for delivering of the fathers therefra Which shall be made clear by considdering 1. By what spirit Christ went and preached in the dayes of Noab 2. who were these spirits in prison to whom he went 3. The time when hee went First then the spirit by which Christ went and preached was not his humane soul but his divine spirit for so sayeth Augustin epist 99. ad Evodium as also Beda on this place O Ecumeniê° likewise and Athanasius which exposition Estius sayeth agreeth well with 2. Cor. 13. 4. Aquinas likewise part 3. q. 52. art 2. saith that it was by the spirit of his divinitie that he went preached sayth he by the mouth of just Noah Lyra in like-manner sayth That it was by the holie Ghost in Noah and in other good men So also speaketh Hugo Cardinalis the Iesuite Salmeron on this place Next Scripture it self testifieth in the same place That it was by that spirit by which he was quickned and raised from the dead and that this spirit was his divine spirit is witnessed Rom. 8. 11. by which also our mortall bodies shall bee quickned and which dwelleth in the Elect. And this is not Christs soule but his holie spirit as v. 9. Next the spirits to whom hee went are descrived 1. That they wer disobedient who abused the long suffering patience of God that waited for their repentance in the dayes of Noah which the patriarchs did not who ar praised so much for the contrary to wit their faith and obedience Heb. 11. 2. They ar said to be such spirits who wer in prison even then when Peter wrote this epistle as their own Andradius notes def coÌ„cil Trid. lib. 2. p. 17. 2 the Text it self declareth therefore wer not fred therfra at Christs Resurrection which was long before 3. The time when Christ by his spirit preached to these spirits in prison was as the text showeth In the dayes of Noah and not after his
death which dayes were thousands of years before the same Therefore sayeth Beda they were the wicked carnall livers in the age that Noah lived in to whom Christ preached And so sayth Carthusian and this he did saieth Aquinas by the mouth of just Noah by the holie Ghost sayeth Lyra in Noah other good meÌ„ By all which it is cleare that it was not after Christs death that in his soule hee descended to any popish Limbus to deliver the godlie Patriarch's therfra Seing the Patriarch that was then alive in the days of Noah was onlie Noah himself The fourth place is Heb. 11. 40. God having provyded a better thing for us that they without us should not bee made perfect whence it followeth saieth he that these holie soules were detained till then in a place distinct from heaven and hell of the damned To whom I answere That no such thing followeth from these words but that the glorifying both in soul and bodie of these holie patâ—iarch's shall not be till the generall resurrection when both they and wee shall be perfectlie in both glorified together which is the exposition of Aquinas Cajetan and Lombard on this place Calling the glorifying of their soules after death the first robe or stole which they received and the second which they are to receive to be the glorifying also of their bodie at the last day This like wise is the exposion of their late Estius which he showeth to be also Augustins epist 99. and Evodium and 49. Treatise on John as also Chrisostoms and Erasmus in his paraphrase And coÌ„cludeth thus saying The Apostle therefore speaketh of the perfyting which is to be at the generall resurrection The fifth place is Math. 12. 40. That as Ionas was three dayes three nights in the Whales bellie so should the son of man be three dayes three nights in the heart of the earth which he expoundeth Hell To which I answere This is onlie spoken of Christs bodie in the graue and not the being of his soule in hell witnesse Chrisostome hom 44. in Math. 12. whose words are He sayeth not in the earth but in the heart of the earth to wit in the graue sayth he Thus also doth Gregorie Nyssen expound epist ad Eustachium So saieth Auselmus on Math. 12. He was in the heart of the earth to wit in the graue sayeth he Thus also doeth Ignatius expound epist ad Trallianos Euthâ—mius in Math. 12. Jerome also and Tertullian with diverse others thus also sayth their owne Lyra The son of man shall be in the heart of the earth three dayes three nights that is in the graue so speaketh their parisian Doctour Arboreus others And which answere serveth likewise for that of the Ephes 4. 9. which others object The sixth place is Math. 27. 52. And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which sleeped arose and came out of their graves after his resurrection To which I answere That heer is a resurrection of the bodies of the saints comming out of their graves but no comming of their soules out of any part of hel oâ— a popish Limbus The seventh place is Zach. 9. 11. By the blood of thy Covenant I haue let out thy prisoners furth of the pitt wherein there is no water That is the Fathers out of Limbus sayeth he To which I answere shortlie omitting Augustins exposition lib. 18. de civitate dei cap. 35. Of the deep of mans miserie by sinne out of which by Christs blood we are freed Bellar. himself answereth clearlie for us l. 1. de purg cap. 3. and showeth That no such thing as Limbus patrum can be meant heerby because their is water of comfort and refreshment in Limbus sayth he wheras in this pitt whereof Zacharie speaketh there is no water at all As for his last place 1. Sam. 28. 14. concerning Samuels apparition to Saull wee haue answered it alreadie that it was not Samuell but the Devill in his shape And which place is most impertinently brought to prove Christs descense into hel by the apparition of any such spirit coÌ„ming out of hell of the damned As for Fathers whom he onlie citeth Jerome explaineth himself on Ephes 4. 9. what he sayeth on v. 8. Next Augustin on psal 171. hath nothing of Limbus patruuÌ„ or Christs descense there and as for Gregorie there is no such place as he mentioneth lib. 3. Moral cap. 20. For that book hath onlie 17. chapters in it 47 THat there is no purgatorie fire or other prison wherein sinnâ—s may be satisfied for after this life VVHich saith he is contrar to 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try everie mans work of what sort it is if any mans work be burnt he shal suffer losse yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire To which I answer or rather their owne Estius on this place saying Sindrie expoundeth this place sayeth he of Purgatorie wherein after this life and before the day of the last judgement the soules of the just are purged from their lighter sinnes but it appeareth that this cannot be said sayeth he both because the words showeth that the day of particular judgement is not to bee understood but of the generall judgement whereas the purging of the soules pertaineth to the particular judgement as also because the fire of purgatorie doth not try everie mans work sayth he but punisheth onlie the evill works of good men Bellarmin also lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. sayeth That the word fire in the 13. and 14. verses is to taken onlie allegoricallie and that the fire of purgatorie is not thereby to bee meant for of this fire the Apostle sayes it shall burne the work not the worker sayeth he and therefore a purging or afflicting fire of persons is not meant thereby onlie hee would haue the word fire in the 15. verse to bee taken in another sense than in the other two verses and therby to be meant the fire of purgatorie but Estius answereth unto him thus refuteth him saying That not without just cause it seemeth to be absurd that the Apostle in one Text of so few words would speake of fire in so diverse significations neither can any easilie be perswaded sayeth hee that in the third place a purgatorie fire of soules can be signified when as in the first and second place another and diverse fire from that is understood And then he subjoines after the naming of some Romanist Divines that hath expounded these words otherwise thaÌ„ hee doth saying Let none marvell that I haue not followed these authours in all things because that neither theÌ„selves amongst themselves do alwayes agree Such is his testimonie of their braged of unitie The second place is Iohn 11. 22. But I know that even now sayeth Martha to Christ Whatsoever thou will ask of God he will give it thee Ergo there is a fiâ—e of purgatorie is as good a consequence as to say ergo
call the righteous but sinners to Repentance these words to repentance are taken out which show the end of Christs comming and calling of sinners I might instance many more places as Ioh. 5. 16. 1. Cor. 15. 54 where a whole sentence is rased out but these shall 4. VVhich is grossest of all I shal instance where their Translation is directlie contrarie and contradictory to the Originall as 1. Gen 49. 24. it is said concerning IOSEPH The armes of his hands were made strong but in their vulgar Translation the words are The armes of his hands were made weake Next IOSUA 5. 6. it is said Vnto whom the LORD did sweare that hee would not showe them the Land but in their Translation it is quyte contrar That he would show them the Land Againe IOSUA 11. 19. it is said There was not a Citie that made peace with the Children of Israel saue the Hivits but in their Translation is said the contrar Ther was no City which did not render or make peace Likewise Psal 68. 22. it is said I will bring my people again from the deepes of the sea but the coÌ„trar is in their Translation saying I will bring my people downe to the deepths of the sea In likemanner in the new Testament 1. Cor. 15. 51. it is said Wee shall not all sleepe but wee shall all bee changed but in their Translation it is thus Wee shall indeed all rise againe but wee shall not all bee changed Where we see gross alteration aswell as contradiction And againe verse 55. where it is said O Death where is thy sting O graue where is thy victory Wee see againe in their Translation grosse alteration the words being these Death where is thy victory Death wher is thysting no word of the graue at all The like of which grosse corruptions adding to Gods Word taking from it and contradicting the same I defie al the Iesults Priests and papists in the World to challenge in our Translations Yea the more yet to convince this Pamphleter and all Romanists whatsoever concerning the viâ—iositie of their vulgar Translation as is said Deut. 32. 31. Even our Enemies being Judges I shall instance onely two or three examples in place of many wherein themselves in their English Rhemes Translation of the new Testament are forced to aknowledge the vitiositie of their vulgar latine by departing therefra and translating these places just as we do as 1. whereas Ioh. 12. 35. in their vulgar latine the words are adhuc modicum lumen in vobis est that is Yet a little whyle the light is in you the Rhemists themselves translate it thus as wee do and according to the Originall Yet a little while the light is with you Next Rom. 12. 19. whereas in the vulgare latine it is Non vosipsos defendentes that is not defending your selves against reason and scripture forbidding lawfull defence the Rhemists translate as wee do Not revenging your selves Again 1. Cor. 15. 34. whereas in the vulgare latine it is ad reverentiam vobis loquor that is I speake it to yoür reverence or honour the Rhemists translate as wee do according to the Original I speake to your shame The next thing to which in his Preface I am to answere is concerning the sense and meaning of the places of Scripture contraverted which hee sayeth is The ever constant and uniforme judgement of the Church and ancient Fathers who in every age since CHRIST haue understood the point in question in that sense sayeth hee which Catholicks now do Conforme therfore to these his words let us put to this Touch-stone which hee calleth the Rule of fayth some chiefe poynts of Poperie and see whether they agree with Scripture as the same is expounded by the whole stream of the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who haue written thereon or if they disagree not as farre therefra as Light doth from darknesse As. 1. To beginne with the mayne point of Poperie The Popes supremacie which the Pamphleter sayeth is grounded on Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this rock wâ—ll I build my Church understanding Peter to be this rock wherof Christ speaketh and yet by the constant and unanimous judgement of the ancient Fathers Church in their time that Text importeth no such papall supremacie nor that by that rock Peter is understood but either CHRIST himself or that fayth of CHRIST wherof Peter made confession As 1. All the greeke Fathers and the Easterne or greeke Church who oppose papall supremacie even unto this day and in particulare to speake bâ—â—h of greek and latine Fathers Origen Tract 1. in Math. 16 Chrisostome Tom. 3. serm de pentecoste Isidorus Pelusiota his disciple lib. 5. Epist 55. Theophylact in Math. 16. Augustin Tract 10. in 1. Epist Johannis Tract 124. in Johan Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae Ambrose in Epist ad Ephes cap. 2. Hilare lib. 6. de de Trinit and Pope Gregory himself Moral in Job lib. 28. cap. 8. and many more which consent of Fathers made Cardinall Cusanus to say de concord Cathol lib. 2. c. 13. altho it was said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church yet by this rock sayth he we understand CHRIST himself whom he confesseth if Peter were to be understood by this rock as a ground-stone of the Church according to S. Ierome are not sayth he the rest of the Apostles ground-stones of the Church inlikemanner of whom it is spoken in the Revelation Wher by the Twelve stones of the foundation of that Citie Jernsalem which is the holy Church no man doubteth sayth he but all the Apostle are to be understood And therfore sayth that same Cardinall wee know that Peter received no more power from Christ than the other Apostles but were the self same that Peter was sayeth Cyprian de Uni eccles indued with a-lyke fellowship â—oth of honour and power And not only doth the forenamed fathers expound that place of Mathew as is said severally but the whole Fathers coÌ„veened in famous generall eâ—umenicall Councels haue decreed against any such Papall supremacie which Romanists would prove by that wrested place of Scripture as 1. That first and famous Councell of Nice anno 325. of 318. Bishops in the 6. Cannon thereof 2. The Councell of Constantinople anno 380. of 150. Bishops Can. 5. which as Bellarmin confesseth pref de Rom. pont withstood altogether any such suptemacie 3. The Councell of Ephesus anno 434. of 200. Bishops cap. 4. and the last is the 4. Councel of Chalcedon anno 454. of 430. Bishops which decreed peremptorly Act. 16. against any such supremacie as Bellvrmin grants in in his preface forenamed but non sine fraude or not without deceat sayeth hee such is popish pretended reverence of Antiquitie when it maketh against them And yet the present Roman Church doeth so farre disagree froÌ„ this exposition of Scripture which they pretend for papall supremacie and from
upon this place And that Christ spake not of their owne doctrine but of Moses doctrine and the Law which they were to deliver The publication onlie being theirs but the doctrine the Lords as we see Math. 28. 19. The next place which hee bringeth is Luke 10. 16. where our Saviour sayeth to his Apostles Hee that heareth you heareth me To which my former answer may suffice Therefore also sayeth Ferus It is heerby evident that the Apostles themselves were to be heard in so farre only as they were Apostles that is Did Christs message and preached and taught what he commanded them but if they should teach otherwise or any doctrine contrarie to Christs then they were not Apostles but seducers sayeth he and therefore not to bee heard His third place is Math. 16. 19. where our Saviour sayeth to Peter What soever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. giving us to understand sayeth he that not onlie the bands of sinnes but all other knots difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by S. Peter and his successours To whom I answere 1. Their own Cardinall Cusanus speaketh thus de concord Cathol lib. 2. cap. 13. There was nothing said to Peter which was not said to all the rest Likewise for as it was said to Peter whatsoever thou shall bind on earth c. was it not said also to all the rest whatsoever yee bind on earth ◠sayeth he whence it will follow that all knots and difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by the successours of all the rest of the Apostles wheresoever aswell as by S. Peter's pretended successours Next if by loosing the solving of all doubts and difficulties in matters of faith bee meaned then by binding which is cōtrar to loosing the making of knots difficulties in matters of faith must be meaned whernone were before which is absurd to affirme And which when Peter's successours doth on earth God must also do the same in heaven As Cardinall Cusanus sayth Epist 2. ad Bohemos p 838. That when the Church changeth her judgement God also changeth his Which is open blasphemy 3 THat the Scriptures ar easie to be understood and therefore none ought to be restrained from reading them VVHich sayeth hee is contrary to the expresse words of 2. Pet. 3. 16. Where Peter speaking of Pauls Epistles sayeth In which are some thinges hard to bee understood To which I answere 1. That by saying some thinges ar hard to bee understood it followeth that the rest which is the greater part are not hard but easie to bee understood For the exception of some onlie cleareth the rest from obscuritie therfore from the greater part of the Scripture easie to be understood which concerne faith manners necessary to salvation wee rather conclude the plainnesse of Scripture◠that people should reade the same then because some thinges are hard to be understood to put obscuritie upon the whole Scripture and therefore to debarre people frō reading thereof Cheiflie seing not onely Augustin lib. 2. de doctr Christ cap. 9. But Bellarmin also consenting to Augustins words lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11. § ultimo testifieth That all doctrines which are simplie necessary for all men to salvation are plainlie set downe in scripture wher upon speaking to the people in his 55. sermon de tempore hee sayeth Neither let it suffice you that yee heare the holie Scriptures read in the Church but also in your own houses either reade thē your selves or desire others to reade them And so likewise sayth Chrisostome con 32. de Lazaro hom 2. in Math. The next place which he bringes is Act. 8. 30. where Philip sayeth to the Eunuch Vnderstandeth thou what thou readeth who said how can I without a guide Whereunto I answere 1. This place was a prophecie and such are hard to be understood till they be fulfilled and the Eunuch was a Proselyte and a Novice onelie in religion therefore from one place which was propheticall and dark to a Novice in religion to conclude that the Scriptures in whole are dark obscure and therefore not to bee read by people is an absurd consequence Yea this place rather maketh against papists seing the Eunuchs practise heere was reading of the Scripture which Philip did not reprehend in him as popish Priests would haue done but only explaineth unto him the Prophesie of whom it was meaned and that it was fulfilled by Christs suffering and so maketh him thereby to bee a Christian convert the occasion of which benefit the reading of the Scripture did afford unto him Wherupon sayeth their owne Carthusian Great was the care of that Heathen man sayeth hee and his diligence condemneth our negligence in learning holie Scriptures Therefore also Chrisostome giveth this directiō to people in reading holy scriptures saying in his 10. homilie on Iohn That which is easie to be understood get by heart and these things that are obscure reade thē over often and if by doing so you cannot findout the meaning go to thy teacher The third place which he brings is Luke 24. 25. where Christ expoundeth to his Disciples al things concerning himselfe To which I answere that this maketh nothing against peoples reading of scripture commanded by Christ himselse Iohn 5. 39. injoyned by the Apostle Eph. 6. 17. Coloss 3. 16. and for which Timothy was commended 2. Tim. 3 15. That from a childe he had knowne the scriptures but only showeth that hard places specially such as prophecies are to be expouned to people as Christ did heere to his disciples as the former place Act. 8. 30. and that speach of Chrisostome showeth The fourth place which he adduceth is Revel 5. 1. concerning the sealed booke which none was able to open and which this pamphleter would have to be the booke of scripture whereunto I will onely answere in the Iesuit Ribera's words on that place saying The prophecie of these things which shall fall out in the last times is here only meaned as Andrew Archbishope of Caesarea expoundeth it sayeth hee proveth that hereby the book of the scripture cannot be meaned because evē then Iohn saw this book sealed whē this revelation was made unto him before which time most of the Apostles were dead So that if by this sealed booke the scripture were understood then it would follow sayeth he that the rery Apostles upon whom the holie ghost descended in their time understood not the scripture but it was sealed even to Peter and Paull and to the rest who died before this revelation was made unto Iohn which were absurd to say But I cannot but marvell that he should bring so manyplaces of scripture to prove that people should not be permitted to reade the scripture because of the obscurity thereof seing that their late and famous Bishope Espenseus on Titus 2. testifieth that the with-holding of the scripture from the people was neither in the Apostles times or
their faith to God ward was spread abroad And that this is the onlie thing which these words import their late Estiê° on Rom. 1. showeth As for testimonies of Fathers and 1. to that of Cyprian who writting to Cornelius sayeth Whilst with you there is one mind and one â—oyce the whole Church is confessed to be RomaÌ„ I answere 1. That Cyprians words are perverted which are these dum apâ—â— vos unus animus una vox est Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est that is Whilst with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole RomaÌ„ Church hath confessed Cyprian thus commending the Church of Rome for an unanimous confession of faith before heathen persecutors as others had done which indeed proveth the soundnes of the Roman Church in Cyprians time as a meÌ„ber of the catholik church but not that shee only then was the Catholick Church 2. Giving that these were the words of Cyprian as they are alleadged they would import onlie that whil the RomaÌ„ Church keeped the unitie of the true faith that all other orthodox and sister Churches of these times would acknowledge themselves to bee of her communion and this we may see confessed by Stapleton relect con 1. q. 5. who giveth this to be the reason why by the ancients the Roman and Catholick Church wer held for one thing because her communion sayeth he with the whole Catholick Church was then most evident and certaine whence it followeth that shee her self then was not the whole Catholick Church 3. where it is said to Pope Cornelius Whilst with you there is one minde one voice that is as long as you kepe the trueth and profession thereof this speech being conditionall and limited it importeth that shee might lose the same as shee hath done Therefore not only was shee forewarned Rom. 11. 20. Not to be high minded but feare but also Cyprian ad Pompeium accuseth Pope Steven who succeeded Cornelius that he maintayned the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God the Pope then and Roman Church under him in Cyprians estimation maintayning Hereticks against the Church could not theÌ„ be accounted by him to be the Catholick Church nor yet to be infallible The second testimonie of Augustins where he sayeth That they who dissent from the bodie of Christ which is the Church they are not in the Catholick Church proveth nowise that the RomaÌ„ Church is this onlie Catholick Church But rather as the words of that testimonie beareth The whole body of Christendom And as for Jeroms words That it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick faith I haue alreadie answered that this was because of her communion with the Catholick Church when Rome was orthodox and as Isai 1. 21 The faithfull City was not become an Har lot 10. THat the Churches unitie is not necessarie in al points of faith I answere that this is an impudent Calumnie as the Harmonie of Confession of reformed Churches showeth and ours in particular of 1581. art 16. For wee maintaine that a two-fold unitie is necessarie to be in Christs church to wit An unitie in Trueth and an unitie in affection both which wee should pray for and promove that as the psalmist speaketh 122. 7. peace may bee within her walls and prosperitie within her palaces And because they brag so much of unitie in doctrine and all points of faith for stopping the mouths of all Romanists ever heereafter ut ex ungue Leonem I will onelie amongst many instance but in one or two maine points of poperie that their unitie is like the division of tongues which was amongst the builders of Babell The first is papall Indulgences and Pardons which are so lucrative dependeth on their Purgatorie wherin thus they varie 1. Some of the old schoolmen as Bellar. witnesseth lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. they doubt of this spirituall treasure and Francis Mayro on 4. sent D. 19. maketh question in particular sayth hee of the treasure of Christs overflowing satisfactions laid up in the Church Againe Durand likewise on 4. sent D. 2. doubteth if the satisfaction of saints belong to the treasure but S. Thomas and Bonaventure sayeth hee thinketh that both belongeth thereunto Againe this is denyed by sundrie ancient Divines sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7. That pardons delivereth men from punishment not onelie before the Church but also before God and verie graue Authours sayeth hee as Alfonsus Durand Paludanus Pope Adrian the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinall Cajetan hold That pardons were never given but for enjoyned penance but Aquinas Ioannes Major Sylvester Dominicus a Soto Michael medina Ledesinius Antonius Cordubensis Navarrus Panormitan and Ioannes Andreas sayeth hee these maintaine the contrarie 2. For the Persons that haue power to give pardons it is questioned sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 11. by what law Bishops may give pardons for some hold that they may do it by Gods law sayeth hee but others deny it yea Angelus in summâ— and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Priests who may heare confession may also grant pardons sayeth hee and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan but the coÌ„mon opinion sayth Bellarmin is contrarie to these 3. For the persons whom they availe thus they varie for amongst the Catholick Doctours sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. Ostiensis in summa and Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 57. haue taught that pardons nowise profite the dead and so this maâ—teth soule Masses but other Catholicks sayeh hee do hold the contrarie Again if they help the dead Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. showeth that it is controverted whether by way of suffrage or otherwise and that they are divyded in three opinions Last of all sayeth Bellarmin in the same place the hardest question of all is Whether pardons do help the dead upon any justice or condignitie or onely of the meer and free favour of God and congruitie some hold the first sayeth he as Dominicê° Soto on 4. sent d. 21. Navarrus others hold it to be meerlie of the mercy bounty of God And so holdeth Cajetan Petrus a Soto Cordubensis and others Now in such a division of tongues and Pen's in this point what is popish unitie let any man judge The second grand point which I will instance is TranssubstantiatioÌ„ wheron is grounded the Idoll of their Masse and that idolatrous adoration of their Hostie wherein sayth the Iesuite Aâ—lapide on Isai 7. 14. by the words of consecration as the bread is trulie and reallie transsubstantiat so Christ is brought forth and as it were begotten upon the Altar so powerfully efficaciouslie as if Christ were not yet incarnat yet by these words this is my Bodie He should be incarnat and assume an humane bodie therfore sayth he the Priest is as the Virgin that bare him the Altar is the manger the little Emmanuell which hee beareth is Christ brought
for you as they are set downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits Judg. 7. 22. Every mans sword against his fellow For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome as wee may see decret 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42 affirmeth That it is Christs Bodie sensuallie that is broken torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers which yet sayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. § quartum cannot be spoken of Christs bodie or flesh without great blaspheÌ„ie And which a little after that time made that great physitian learned Philosopher Averroes to say as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador cap. 3. mundum peragravi c. that is I have travelled through the world sayeth hee and I never saw a worse more foolish â—ect than that of the Christians is because with their teeth they devoure that God whoÌ„ they worship which I may say is at this day the greatest scandell to Turks Iewes and Pagans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christianitie as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next their master of senteÌ„ces Lombard l. 4. dist 12. telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Councell is false erronious seing Christs bodie is now incorruptible immortall and impassible that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Disciples sayeth he who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts or torne in morsels as other flesh is therfore sayeth he dist 11. because it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mysterie 3. Others againe sayth he affirmeth that there is no reall breaking there as men seemeth to see with their eyes but that it is said to be broken sicut fit in magorum prestigiis c. that is as useth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers who by delusion deceiveth mens eyes sayeth he that they seeme to see that which is not a right comparison indeed of masse priests 4. Others againe sayeth the same Lombard affirme that by the wonderfull power of God there is a breaking ther where notwithstanding nothing is broken a grosse contradiction and this Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven that is dayly wrought by the masse Priest to wit That in the Masse that which is indivisible yet is divyded and tho it be divyded sayeth hee it remaineth whole 5. Biel also on the canon of the Masse lect 36. fayth that That which Christ brake and the Priest now breaketh is the sacramentall species as whytnes roundnes but neither Christs bodie nor yet any thing that is whyte and round a strange Chimera indeed The like sayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke nor bread though the Apostle sayeth 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break but this fraction is of the forme onelie and shape of the bread sacramentallie done sayth he which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying That this is the common opinion that the accidents of the breade which remaine without any subject ar only that which is broken Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurditie 10. No lesse digladiation is amongst Romanists concerning what is eaten in the sacrament according to Christs words Take Eate For 1. as hath beene said according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning It is Christs bodie flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth which Bellarmin calleth blasphemous and Lombard hereticall But on the contrarie Alexander Ales p. 4. 11. memb art 2. as also Bonaventure in 4. sent d. 12. art 3. Affirme that the eating of Christs bodie is mysticall and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reasone thereof that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating to wit 1. a masticatioÌ„ or chewing with the teeth 2. a trajection into the stomack and bellie And 3. a Conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this last which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree to the bodie of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in a mysticall manner turneth us into it self say they to which they might also added that which our Saviour â—peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth that it likewise goeth out in the draught Math. 15. 17. Againe if a Mouse or Ratt or any such beast happen to eate the consecrated Hostie it is controverted what is eaten by such 1. then in the Roman missall and cautel's of the Masse it is affirmed that they eate Christs bodie for these ar the very words Item â—â— corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit c. that is If the bodie of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders if these vermine can be found let them be burned and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconsumed if it may be done without horror let it be eaten But Lombard in the contrarieê° lib. 4. d. 13. sayeth That Christs bodie is not eaten by such beasts though it would seeme that it were and if any will ask sayeth he What is it then which is eaten by such he answereth verie blâ—ntlie saying Deus novit that is God knoweth not hee But Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter otherwise and sayeth That as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the bodie of Christ when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament so doth bread miraculously returne wheÌ„ Christs bodie ceasseth to be there and therfore that the mouse or any such beast eateth onlie the bread that miraculouslie is so furnished unto them by God Even as the same Durand tells a tale there how a Matron that furnished bread sabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did laugh when shee heard the Pope affirme that to be Christs bodie which shee knew to be bread that her self had baken whereupon the Pope to coÌ„vince her of her errour by his prayer he converted the hostie visiblie into a finger of flesh when heere on shee was converted he prayed againe and turned the finger of flesh into bread againe And so heere were three pretie coÌ„versions si credere fas ect The first of the Hostie into Christs bodie invisiblie the next of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly the third of the finger of flesh back againe into bread visiblie Quis talia fando temperet c 11. Heere againe in the other Element of the Sacrament they contend one against another concerning the mixture of water with the wine the TranssubstantiatioÌ„ of both 1. Then Cardinall Aliacâ— in 4. sent q. 5. telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not simplie necessarie at all to be used in the
rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church To which I answere The true meaning of these words in their own Aquinas words on this place is this saying These words according to the superfice might haue an ill sense as if Christs passion were not sufficient for our redemption but for filling up that which wants the sufferings of the saints wer to be added but this is hereticall sayeth he for the blood of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of many worlds himself being the propitiation for our sinnes but it is to be understood sayeth he that Christ and his Church make up but one mysticall person whose head is Christ and all the godlie are his bodie members thereof this then was wanting that as Christ had suffered in his naturall bodie so he was to suffer in Pauls person as a member of his mysticall bodie Christs sufferings in his bodie being for the redemptioÌ„ of his Church but the sufferings of the saints for the Church being for this that by their example the Church may be confirmed sayeth he where we see that the sufferings of the saints serve to the church for coÌ„formity confirmation but not as this Pamphleter would haue them to be a treasure for papall indulgences to bring in a treasure of money to the popes coffers The second place which he brings is Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul exhorteth the Philippians to receiue Epaphroditus with all gladnes because for the work of Christ hee was neare to death to supplie their work of service towards him which as Aquinas says They were not able in their owne persons to performe to him which words of Paul no more proveth the Pamphleters point wherat he aimeth of the benefit of popish indulgences then that Rome is in Vtopia but showeth both his usuall impertinencie impudence and ignorance 18. THat no man can do works of supererogation VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 19. 21. wher our Saviour sayeth to the young rich-man If thou will be perfect go sell all that which thou hast and give to the poor c. and follow me wheÌ„ce it plainlie appeareth sayeth he that a man by the assistance of Gods grace may do somthings counselled which are of more perfection than are things commanded To whom I answere 1. in their owne Ferus words on this place saying In these words is implyed that which is necessarie commanded to all to wit Poverty of spirit which is nothing else but with the heart to cleaue to no creature neither doeth the kingdome of heaven belong to any but to such as do so sayeth he 2. This coÌ„mand to this young at this time to sell all was a personall coÌ„mand given for this end to discover this young mans covetousnes and hypocrisie in saying he had keeped the whole law from his youth like that personall command given to Abraham of sacrificing Isaac to discover his great faith and obedience to all after ages And wee know that such personall coÌ„mands for tryall or discovery doth not tye all 3. The perfection of Angels is to do Gods Commandements as wee see Psal 103. 20. and in that petition of the Lords prayer Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven Yea Christs owne perfection was in this the doing of his Fathers will shall wretched sinfull man be able to go beyond the perfectioÌ„ of these The second place which he bringeth is 1. Cor. 7. 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no Commandement of the Lord yet I give my judgement we reade counsell sayeth hee and to do that which is counselled is not necessarie because one nevertheless may bee saved sayeth he To which place I answere 1. Not only the originâ—ll hath the word judgemeÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not counsell but also Cardinall Cajetan acknowledgeth the same on that place ingenouslie 2. By command the Apostle meaneth a generall command oblieging all persons at all times as the precepts of the Morall Law do and concerning such special coÌ„mands of living single and keeping virginitie hee showeth that he hath no such CoÌ„mandement of the Lord but in regard of the present condition of Christians lyable to daylie persecution he declares his judgement only that to live single in the estate of virginitie it is better then to liue in a married estate for their owne good but not that thereby they could supererogat at Gods hands therfore leaving it in the meane time free to every one to do as God hath distributed to every one his gifts as he speaketh 1. Cor. 7. 17. 3 Gerson de consult evang statu perfect and with him their Paludanus in lib. 3. sent d. 34. q. 3. do teach That some may attaine to as great hight of perfection living in marriage and possessing riches as we see in Abraham Iob as they who liue single or in the estate of povertie As also Jansenius in his concord on the Evangelists cap. 100. alleadging the authoritie of Aquinas teacheth That the perfection of a Christian life consisteth essentiallie in keeping of Gods Commandements Aquin 2 2. q. 184. art 3. and as we see Philip. 4. 8. beyond which in performance can no flesh go Lastlie We find in scripture Gods counsell to man his coÌ„mand to be all one as these places testifie psal 73. 24. Prov. 1. 25. 30. Jer. 49. 20. Act. 20. 27. and Revel 3. 18. How soever with man it may be said as it is proverbiall Counsell is no command The third place which he bringes is Math. 19 12. There be Eunuchs who haue made themselves so for the kingdome of heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive or keepe it now of precepts it is not said keepe them who may or is able but keep theÌ„ absolutlie sayeth he For answere 1. Let him hear the Iesuite Maldonats exposition upon this place saying The words receive it in this place signifieth the same as to understand for Christ thereby would say no other thing than elswhere hee useth to speake of any grave matter saying he that hath eares to heare let him heare sayeth he 2. These Eunnchs that made theÌ„selves such that is lives as Eunuchs chastlie and in a single life the text sayeth that they did it for themselves to attaine to the kingdome of heaven which everie one is bound to do and not to supererogat for others As for Origens words which hee alleadgeth on the 1. Rom. 15. saying These things which we do over aboue our dutie I find nowise in that place and though they were yet we must distinguish betweene duties to which wee are bound by a generall precept common to all as hath beene said duties to which we are not so bound but left to the performance therof according as every one findeth himself gifted or not which answere serveth also to that place alleadged out of
in us both the will and the deed In this sense also doth Cyrill speak whom hee bringeth saying Wâ—e cannot any wayes deny freedome of will in man And Augustin also speaking against manichean coaction and saying How should our Saviour reward everie one according to their works if there were not freewill conforme wherunto sayth the haromnie also of the coÌ„fessions of the reformed Churches ours in particular 1647. cap. 9. God hath indued the will of man with that natural libertie that it is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evill So that wee acknowledge the will to be free as freedome is opposed to coaction but not free as able of it self to choyse the good that tendeth to salvation or that it is equallie propense to good as to evill as the Pelagians of old now papists maintaine Therefore said Bernard de gra lib. arb Let no man think that therfore it is called freewill which wee haue because it hath an equall power inclination to good as to evill seing it could fall by it self but not rise but by the holie Ghost 20. THat it is impossible to kepe Gods Comandements tho assisted with his grace and the holie Ghost VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Philip. 4. 13. where the the Apostle sayth That he can do all things through Christ. that strengthneth him Whereunto I answere That the word all things is not of further extent than these things whereof he speaketh in particular in the preceeding verse where hee sayeth In all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungrie to abound and to suffer neede Thus doth Sedulius and their owne canonized Aquinas expound this text as also their late Estiê° saying The meaning is all things before rehearsed what else I am to suffer I am able to do thorow Christ who enableth me so that he speaketh noâ— of his perfect fulfilling of the Law in generall the contrarie whereof hee confesseth Rom. 7. 23. The second place which he bringeth is Luke 1. 5. 6. where it is said of Zacharie Elizabeth That they walked in all the commandemenâ—s of the Lord blamelesse To which I answere 1. That this was the old Pelagian objection which they called their impenetrable Buckler as Ierome witnesseth lib. 1. cont Pelag with whom the papists heerin agree And to whom I answere in his words to the Pelagian That where it is said that they are called righteous this is sayth he as many others are called so in the holie scripture as Ioâ— Iehosaphat and Iosias not that they wanted all fault but are commended so because for the most part they wer vertuous for Zacharias himself was punished with dumbnes sayeth he and Ioâ— by his owne speech was rebuked and Iehosaphat Iosias are reported to haue done things which greatlie displeaseth God Next where it is said that Zacharie and Elizabeth walked in all the Commandements of God without blame that is without any grosse wickednes sayeth he but that they walked without sinne I deny sayeth he that any man can do so for that is coÌ„petent onlie to God Their owne Carthusian also with him their late Stella showeth That this is spoken according to that measure which is agreeable to humane conditioÌ„ but that there walking was not without sinne for there is none so righteous in this mortall life sayeth he The third place is Luke 11. 27. where Christ sayeth Yea rather blessed are they who heare the word keepe it To which I answere and to all such places that speake of keeping Gods word or commandements that such a keeping therof is heere meaned as there Carthusian sayeth Which is agreeable to humane condition in this life For as Ierome sayeth lib. 3. cont Pelag. If thou can showe me but one man who hath fulfilled the Commandements Thou may showe me a man that needes not Gods mercie sayeth he The fourth place is Luke 11. 2. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven To which I answer as their owne Carthusian also expoundeth That this is readilie reverendlie and sincerlie Qâ—antum nostra fragilitas permittit that is as farre as our frailtie permitteth sayeth he so that the word as hath relation not to that degree of perfect obedience which Angels performe in heaven but to the manner of doing the same as hath ben said by CarthusiaÌ„ as our frailtie permitteth which sufferes us not to be free of sinne of not doing Gods Will perfectlie and therefore in the same prayer wee are also taught to crave daylie forgivnes which we needed not if wee could obey Gods will perfectlie as the Angels do The last place is 1. Iohn 5. 3. For this is the love of God that we keepe his CoÌ„mandements which is coincident with the third place therefore alreadie answered As for any testimonies of Fathers he bringeth the words onlie one of Basil saying That it is an impious thing to say that the Commandements of God are impossible To which I answere Though hee telleth not where Basil speaketh so that it is impious indeed to say that Gods commandements are impossible to be keeped in any measure for wee see the contrarie in Zacharie and Elizabeth but to say that in this life they may be keped perfectlie without sinne or any breach of them that is lykewise impious plaine Pelagianisme or heresie therefore in this sense sayeth Ambrose on gal 3. which Aquinas citeth on the same place The Commandements ar such that it is impossible to kepe them sayeh he but I admire how hee citeth Hilarie in psal 118. whose words are these on the 39. verse in his contrar saying The Prophet being in the bodie speaketh and knoweth that no living man can be without sin except one whom he remembreth who had no sinne and in whose mouth was found no guile to wit Christ As also I have showne how opposit Ierome is to him l. 3. cont Pelag. whom notwithstanding he citeth as for him As Origen and Cyrill who no wise patronizeth him 21. THat faith onlie justifieth that good works are not absolutlie necessarie to salvation VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I haue all faith so that I could remove mountains I have not charitie I am nothing therefore faith onlie doth not justifie sayeth he To which I answere 1. That there is no word in this Text of Iustification but of the necessitie of charitie to be joyned with faith in a christian profession which no protestant ever yet denyed 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a justifying faith but as the words importeth of a faith of working Miracles which their owne Estius acknowledgeth saying on 1. Cor. 12. 9. The greeke Fathers do rightlie understand that faith heere of which is spoken cap. 13. 2. which they call the faith of signs and miracles which faith sayth he is of it self a grace onlie given for the benefit of others And so not a justifying
faith for a man himself as wee may see Math. 7. 22. The second place is Iam. 2. 24. where it is said Yee see therfore how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only To which I answer That beside O Ecumenius Theodoret and Beda on this place their owne Aquinas showeth the true meaning thereof Who objecting to this place Rom. 3. 20. where it is said by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight he reconcileth them thus I answere sayeth he that to justifie may be taken two wayes either for the execution or for the manifestation of our justification and this way indeed a man is justified by works that is he is declared and manifested to bee just or it is taken for the infused habit of righteousnes and this way no man is justified by works sayeth he Likewise sayeth Doctour Paes a Portugall Frier The meaning of these words That Abraham was justified by works may be this as Theodoret expoundeth that he was declared just which exposition I approve most sayeth he The third place is Iam. 2. 14. where the Apostle sayeth What doth it profit though a man say hee hath faith not works can that faith saue him I answere 1. That the Apostle sayeth not Though a man haue faith but Though he say hee hath faith showing therby that an alleadgance onlie of faith availeth not to salvation 2. Aâ— their Estius with us showeth it is said ther that a dead and fruitlesse faith onlie according to the Apostles words verse 17. and 18. availeth not to salvation nor can be called a justifying faith The fourth place is Gal. 5. 6. Neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but faith which worketh by loue which place is coincident with the former and doeth nowise militat against our doctrine of Iustification as the words of our coÌ„fession anno 1581. and 1647. c. 11. testifieth saying That faith receiving and relying onlie on Christ and his righteousnes is the onlie instrument of our Iustification â—et it is not alone in the person justified but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith but worketh by loue And that this is also the doctrine of all other reformed Churches their own Cassander witnesseth consult art 4. As also Bellarmin lib. 1. de Iustif cap. 14. saying Iohn Calvin in his Antidote of the Councell cap. 11. Sess 6. sayeth That it is faith onlie that justifieth but yet not fayth which is alone as the heate of the sunne is that onlie which heateth the earth yet heate is not alone in the sunne but their is light also joyned with it the same also sayeth he doth Melancton Brentius Chemnitius teach with others And as for Fathers whom hee citeth or whose words he setteth downe such as Ambrose saying That faith alone sufficeth not Augustin that faith onlie saveth not without observing Gods Commandements they militat nowise against out doctrine as wee see confessed But I admire at the impudence or ignorance of this Pamphleter who in the next place ascribeth to us that we hold That good works are not necessarie to salvation whereas in the contrarie These are the words of our Confession of faith cap. 16. concerning their necessitie That they are the fruits and evidences of a true and livelie faith and by them Believers manifest their thankfulnes strengthneth their assurance edifieth their brethren adorneth the profession of the gospell stops the mouth of the adversaries and glorisieth God whose workmaÌ„ship they are created in Christ thereunto that having their fruit in holines they may haue the end life eternall being as Bernard speakes via Regni non causa regnandi 22. THat good works are not meritorious VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 16. 27. where it is said That Christ at his second coÌ„ming shall reward every one according to his works To which I will answere onlie in the words of Pope Gregorie in psal 7. poenit verba fac auditam who sayeth thus If the felicitie of the saints be mercie and not acquired by merits where is that which is written who shall render to every one according to his works If it be rendred then according to works how shall it be esteemed mercie but it it one thing sayeth he according to ones works and another thing to render for the works themselves For in that it â—â— said according to his works the qualitie of the work is understood that whose works are seene to be good his reward shall be also glorious as whose works are evill his reward shall be contrarie but as to that eternal life which we haue of God with God no labour can be equalled sayeth he no works can be compared Therfore also sayes their late Ferus on Rom. 2. 6. All that this word according doeth import in relation to good works is that the doing of them is a requisite condition without any sort of meriting sayeth he The second place is Math. 5. 11. Rejoyce and bee glad for great is your reward in heaven As also Math. 10. 42. That a cup of cold water given to one of Christs shall not want it reward Whereunto I answere 1. That we deny not but that good works haue their reward abyding them for so sayth our ConfessioÌ„ of faith 1647. cap. 16. art 6. That the Lord looking on believers in his Son it pleased hiâ— to accept reward that which is sincere altho accompanyed with many weaknesses and imperfections But wee distinguish and say that there is a reward in mercie wherof Hosea speaketh 10. 12. saying Sowe in righteousnes and reape in mercie As also the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 16. 17. And there is a reward of merite called wages Rom. 6. 23. Where the Apostle sayeth The wages of sinne is death but by way of opposition he sayeth Life eternall is the free gift of God upon which place therfore sayeth Cardinall Cajetan according to Augustins like words de gra lib. arb cap. 9. The gift of God is Eternall life that we may understand sayeth he that it is not for our merits but of the free gift of God that in end we attaine to eternall life So also speaketh Lombard That we may understand that God bringeth us to eternall life sayeth he for his owne mercie sake and not for our merits So also speaketh their Ferus on Iohn 3. and Math. 20 Gabriel Biel on the the Canon of the Masse lect 47. â—nd others yea Bellarmin himself lib. 5. de Iustif cap. 19. confesseth That this hath beene the common and constant judgement of Divines in the Roman Church as Thomas Bonaventure Scotus Durand aâ—d others that God rewardeth good works of his meer liberalitie aboue any condignitie Flat coÌ„trar to that blasphemous speech of the Rhemists on Heb. 6. 10. saying That our good works are so fullie worthie of eternall life which God of his justice oweth to the workers â—f the same that he should be
Lord of Hosts 3. The change also of Iacobs name to Israell Gen. 32. 28. and the reason therof showeth this For as a Prince thou hast prevailed with God sayth he who wrestled with him And 4. the name of the place proveth this being called Peniell for I haue seen God face to face sayeth Iacob As for testimonies of fathers he bringeth onlie Augustin on Iob. 19. 21. where he fayth That Iob speaking thus haue pitie on me my friends he addrest himself to the Angels To which I answer 1. That he wrongs Augustins words which are these only That Iob seemeth to desire the Angels or-else the saints to pray for him which exposition Pineda a Iesuite condemneth and expoundeth it of Iobâ— owne friends 2. The scripture it self in the veâ—ie next verse maketh against any such exposition which sayeth why persecute yee mee to wit by reproaches which the good Angels abhorre to do to the godlie 3. Pope Gregory also in his Moralls on that place expoundeth it thus saying Behold he calleth theÌ„ friends who by reproachs hitherto had afflicted him Thus also doth Lyra expound this place Ferus like wise and Mercerus professour in the Universitie of Paris 29. THat the Angels cannot help us FOr answere This calumnie is most impudentlie and maliciouslie imputed to us for on the contrarie we grant that both they can and do help the godlie seing as is said Heb. 1. 14. They are Ministring spirits sent forth for the good of the Elect as many examples in scripture doeth prove 30 THat no saint deceassed hath afterwards appeared on the earth FOr answere This likewise wee nowise affirme nor are we contrarie to Math. 27. 52. That after Christs death the graves were opened and many bodies of saints that sleeped arose came out of their graves after his resurrection and went into the holie citie and appeared to many nor to Math. 17. 3. That Moses and Elias appeared at Christs transfiguration to to the three disciples But this Pamphleter heerin showeth his ignorance saying That they talked with them whereas Thy talked onlie with Christ. And as for Samuels apparition to Saull 1. Sam. 28. Tertullian lib. de anima prope finem Iustinus Martyr q. 52. Augnstin quaestionuÌ„ vet Test q. 27. Procopius and Eucherius in 1. Sam 28. Aquinas sum p. 1. q. 89. art 8. and the Popes owne Decretall causa 29. cap. 14. All these declare that it was not Samuell but the devill that appeared like him to Saull But the intention of this Pamphleter in all the places adduced is for establishing that lucrative errour of Purgatorie and of the apparition of soules being there and desiring by soule-masses to be freed therfrom To which I will answere onlie in Chrisostoms words Hom. 29. on Math. These voyces that say I am the soul of such a one proceedeth saith he froÌ„ the deceat of the Devill for it is not the soul that departed that sayth that but Satan who that he may deceive the the hearers faineth himself to be that sonle sayeth he As likewise thus â—peaketh their owne Lyra on Dan. 11. People being thus deceived by miâ—acles fained by Priests and their adheâ—ents for their gaine sayeth hee as â—he people of old were deceived by the Priests that worshipped the dragon and God permitting this sayth their Gabriel Biel in canone Missae lect 49. and mens infidelitie so deserving the same Against which sort of jugling tricks and apparitions their owne famoê° Valla mightily exclaimeth in his book of Constantins donation about the end thereof 31 THat the Saints deceassed know not what passeth heer on earth VVHich is contrarie sayth he to Luke 16. 29. wher Abraham knew that they had Moses books on earth when he sayd to Dives concerning his brethren they haue Moses the Prophets which himself had never seen while he was alive To which I answere 1. That this is a parable as Theophylact sayeth expreslie on Luke 16. and Iustin Martyr q. 60. As also Chrisostome Hom. 1. de Lazaro and their owne Arboreus showeth that others affirme the same as Erasmus doth and parabolicall speeches are not argumentative by consent of all The second place is Iohn 5. 45. where our Saviour sayeth There is one that accuseth you even Moses in whom yee trust To which I answere That by Moses is understood not his person who should be their accuser and therefore knew their faults but as this Pamphleters own words are Moses books And so this place proveth not his point The third place is Revel 12. 10. taken from Satans accusing the brethren before God ergo sayeth he hee must know wherof and who without shame can deny that to saints which must needeth be granted to devils To which I answere That this is an absurd infereÌ„ce for glorified saints remaine onlie in heaven And therfore as is said Iob 14. 21. and Isai 36. 16. know not mens effaires on earth whereas the Devill compasseth the earth to and fro walking in it Iob. 1. 7. being the Temper and therefore may know mens effaires and actions The fourth place is 2. King 6. 12. where Elisha told the King of Israel the words that the King of Syria spake in his bed-chamber To which I answere That from one extraordinarie act of Gods revelation to his Prophet and of one thing onlie on earth to argue to an ordinarie revelation to his glorified saints of all things in heaven is as absurd a consequence as was the former As for Fathers hee citeth onelie three Euscbius Maximus and Ierome but none of their words and so loâ—slie also as 14. chapters being in that book of Ieromes he telleth not in which of them 32. THat the Saints pray not for us TO which point I answere first in generall That the controversie is not as I spoke of Angels what the saints in heaven out of their charitie do for the Church their fellow brethreÌ„ in general but what our duty is if it be lawfull for us to pray to theÌ„ in particular Next I answere to the wrested places of scripture which he bringeth to prove that they pray for particular men ordinarlie and in particular cases knowne unto them as hee said before The first whereof is Revel 5. 8. where The twentie four Elders in heaven are said to fall downe before the Lamb having everie oâ—e harps and golden vials full of odours which are the prayers of the saints to which I answere That Haymo Beda Aquinas and Richard de S. victore all expound these Twentie four elders to represent the church militant said to bee in heaven as that woman Revel 12. is said to be because of their heavenlie disposition and affections because that this was represented in a heavenlie vision to Iohn and are said to have Harps and golden vials the speech being borrowed froÌ„ the Leviticall Ministrie as the Iesuit Ribera showeth to expresse the spirituall worship of Christians praises prayer under the gospell as wee see fore-prophecied Mal. 1. 11.
particular devote prayer is this pure offering sayeth Lyra. The second place is Psal 110. 4. wher Christ is called A Priest after the order of Melchisedek whose sacrifice was made in bread and wine saith he as the Masse is now To whom I answer 1. That Melchisedecks sacrifice was not in bread and wine for that was the refreshment onlie which he brought furth to Abraham and his followers as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth therefore their owne vulgar hath the word protulit he brought furth and not the word obtulit he offered up 2. Cardinall Cajetan and with him Andradius sayeth there is nothing in that storie Gen. 14. 18. of any sacrifice or oblation that Melchisedek-offered up to God sayeth he but that be caused bring furth bread and wine as Iosepâ—us reporteth for the refreshment of the victors And therafter when hee cometh to these words And he blessed him behold heer sayth he is his Priestlie action according to Numb 6. 23. which therefore the Apostle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him therby to bee greater nor Abraham and consequentlie his Priesthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loines because at that time Levi was both tythed and blessed by him The third place is Luke 22. 19. This is my bodie which was given for you To which I answere That of these words I haue already spoken by which heere they would make Christ to haue bene a Masse-priest and to haue sacrificed himself the night before he was sacrificed on the Crosse And so contrarie to Heb. 10. 14. That by one onlie offering hee hath not perfected for ever them who are sanctified but contrar to Heb. 7. 27. That Hee offered himself up twise whereas it was necessarie sayth Paull Heb. 9. 25. That he should not offer himself up ofter than once for then as he sayth hee must haue suffered ofter than once which the Apostle counteth a most grosse absurditie As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth who calleth that which Christ instituted at his last supper An unbloodie mysticall venerable sacrifice I answere in the words of Lombard their Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 12. q. si sit who showeth in what sense the fathers so calleth it saying That which is offered and consecrated is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of that true sacrifice and holy reall oblation which was made on the Altar of the Cross which only was bloodie In likmanner sayeth Aquinas part 3. q. 83. art 1. It is called a sacrifice both because the celebration of this sacrament is an image and representatioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ as also because by this sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords passion sacrifice on the Cross So also speakes Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 85. calling the Eucharist a sacrifice because it is a representation and memoriall sayeth he of that true and holy sacrifice offered on the Cross And subjoyneth this reason for as Augustin sayeth hee writteth to Simplician the Images of things useth to be called by their names whereof they are images as we say this is Cicero when it is but Cicero's picture sayeth he So in likmanner speaketh Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romanists So that it is false that Bellarmin sayth lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. That neither the scripture nor the fathers calleth that a sacrifice which is only a representation remembrance of a sacrifice And because this is their Idoll of the Masse which they adore therfore I will labour to overthrow this Dagon by some few arguments furnished by themselves as 1. A sacrifice and Priesthood are relatives sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. so that to a sacrifice properly so called a Priesthood also properlie called must be correspondent sayeth he whence it will follow that if the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called the Priest must be a Priest also properlie so called and if this bee he must be either after the order of Aaron which hath ceased or after the order of Melchisedeck this he cannot be because Christ living and being a Priest for ever after that order he hath no successour therein as we are taught Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next sayeth Bellar. in the same chapter § neque Melchisedecks sacrifice was bread and wine so sayth this Pamphleter wheÌ„ce it will follow that in the Masse in likmanner that which is offered up by the Priest giving that he were after the order of Melchisedeck must be bread and wine only and consequently not the flesh blood of Christ by transsubstantiation 3. If they will say that it is notwithstanding Christs owne bodie and blood that is offered up then out of Bellar. in the same place § 6. I reason thus in a sacrifice properlie so called there must be some sensible thing that is offered sayeth he but this cannot bee Christs bodie because by none of the senses as sight tast or touch can it be discerned to be there and as for the accidents of the bread as shape colour and taste I hope they will not say that this is the sensible thing which they offer up as a sacrifice 4. Saieth Bellar. in the same place § 8. To a true sacrifice is required that the thing which is offered be in the substance thereof destroyed that is that it be so changed sayth he that it cease to be what it was before Which to affirme of Christs bodie offered up in the Masse wer most horrid blasphemie 42 THat sacramentall unction is not to be used to the sick VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iam. 5. 14. where the anointing of the sick with oyle is coÌ„manded To which I answere in Cardinall Cajetans words on this place saying Neither by these words themselves nor by the effects doth these words speake of sacramentall extreame unction but rather of that unction saieth he which the Lord Iesus did institute in the gospell to be exercised on the sick for the Text sayeth not if any be sick unto death bâ—t absolutlie if any bee sick sayeth he and further the effect is the raising up of the sick wheras extreame unction is not given but at the point of death sayeth hee besids this Iames biddeth call many elders and many anointers to one sick person which is altogether disagreable to the manner of extreame unction sayeth hee The second place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oyle who were sick and healed them wherunto the same Cardinall answereth thus This unction sayeth he was not sacramentall for it is evident that they used oyle heer for healing not for ministring any sacrament sayeth he as also it is cleare that thereupon followed health otherwise the vertue of healing oyle which was miraculous had not been known this effect is not found by extreame unction sayth he And of this same judgement with Cajetan were Ruardus Iansenius Dominicê° a Soto with