an effect of omnipotency Dicitur enim Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult i. For God is sayd to be omnipotent by doing that which he will not by suffering that which he will not 8. From hence it must needes follow that heere can bee no miracle and that not onely because miracles are extraordinary works of God and this change of substances is ordinary in euery Sacrament as they say and miracles are not contrary but aboue or beside nature but this is flat contrary not onely to nature but to God himselfe the Authour and Creator of nature and miracles are alwaies sensible but this is insensible and cannot bee discerned by any outward meanes but also for that no miracle can imply contradiction in it selfe as this must needes doe if it were as they would haue it For when Aarons Rodde was turned into a Serpent it left to be a Rodde and when it turned into a Rodde it left to be a Serpent And when the Water was turned into Wine it left to bee Water it was impossible that it should haue beene both Water and Wine at one time in one and the same respect or a Rodde and a Serpent at once And so of all other miracles there is not one to be found that enwrappeth contradictions Besides all which Saint Augustine concludeth peremptorily that Sacraments may haue honour vt Religiosa but not amazement vt admiranda as miracles And Thomas Aquinas more plainely saith Ea quae contradictionem implioant sub diuina potentia non continentur i. Those things which imply contradiction cannot fall vnder the power of God 9. They reply that they teach no more then Cyprian did thirteeene hundred yeeres since who said that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands at the last Supper I answere that Cyprian in that place the rest of the Fathers elsewhere did often vse hyperbolicall speeches to extoll the dignity of the Sacrament and to shew the certainty and efficacy of our communion with Christ and of our spirituall eating of him but they neuer meant so as the Romanists doe that Christ bore his reall naturall substantiall body in his owne hands and gaue it to his Apostles after a fleshly manner For Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in another place when hee saith that Sacraments haue the names of those things which they signifie And Saint Augustine more plainly saith that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands after a sort If it had beene really and substantially what neede hee haue added after a sort for this word as they vse to speake in Schooles is Terminus diminutiuus qui realitati vbique detrahit A diminitiue terme which detracteth from the realtie and true being of a thing And this speech Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands after a sort is all one with that in another place After a certaine manner the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body So that it is playne that when the Fathers said Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands they meant nothing but that he bore in his hands the Sacrament of himselfe and thus this first contradiction is irreconciliable I come to a second and that in the Sacrament which is no lesse palpable 10. It is a principle of their Religion and of the truth it selfe that Christ after his resurrection ascended into heauen and there filleth a place and hath figure forme and disposition of parts and is circumscribed within a certaine compasse according to the nature of a body This is Bellarmines owne assertion and it is consonant to sound doctrine confirmed both by manifest Scripture and vniforme consent of ancient Fathers for Scripture Christ is said to bee like vnto vs and not barely like but like in all things that is both in nature and in the qualities and quantities of nature And to put the matter out of doubt onely one thing is excepted wherin he is not like vnto vs and that is Sinne whereby he is absolutely left to bee like vnto vs in all other things And lest any should thinke that that was true onely whilst he was here vpon earth the Apostle in the forenamed places applyeth it to him being in heauen for hee saith Wee haue not an High-priest which cannot be touched with our infirmities and therefore let vs boldly goe vnto the throne of grace where the Apostles argument were of no force if he were like vnto vs here on earth onely in the state of his humilitie and not also now being in heauen in the state of glory for sinfull man might thus reply True Christ was like our nature whilst he liued amongst vs but now being glorified he hath put off our nature and therefore we dare not presume to come vnto him Yes saith the Apostle he is still like vnto vs and hath not put off our nature but the infirmities of our nature onely which were the sequels of sinne as we also shall doe when we shall be translated into heauen after the resurrection And this Saint Luke more plainely auoucheth when he saith that after he had blessed them he departed from them and was carryed vp into heauen and that whilst they beheld he was taken vp by a cloude out of their sight Where we see plainely a locall motion of Christ from earth to heauen and therefore there must needs be of him a locall situation in the heauens As also Saint Peter in expresse words doeth affirme when he saith that the heauens must containe or receiue him vntill the time of restauration of all things Thus this doctrine is consonant to holy Scripture 11. Now let vs see how it was entertayned by the ancient Fathers thus they write Athanasius When Christ said I goe to the Father he spake of the humane nature which hee haed assumed for it is the propertie of him to goe and come who is circumscribed with certaine limits of places and forsaking that place where it was commeth to the place where it was not Nazianzene saith Wee professe one and the same Lord passible in the flesh impossible in his Godhead circumscribed in body vncircumscribed in deity the same both earthly and heauenly visible and inuisible comprehended in place and not comprehended Againe Christ as man is circumscribed and contayned in place Christ as God is vncircumscribed and contayned within no place Augustine saith Christ as man according to his body is in a place but as God filleth all places Cyril saith Though Christ hath taken from hence the presence of his body yet in the maiestie of his deitie hee is alwayes present Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ a locall Man of a Woman his mother who is the infinite God of God his Father Vigilius the Martyr Christ is in all places according to the nature of his deitie but is contayned in one place according to the nature of his humanity Damascene The difference of natures
in Christ is not taken away by their vnion in one person but the proprietie of each nature is kept safe Leo one of their Popes Christ hath vnited both natures together by such a league that neither glorification doth consume the inferiour nature nor assumption doth diminish the superiour To these I might adde many more but these are sufficient to prooue that this doctrine touching the truth of Christs humanitie now glorified in the heauens that he hath retained our nature with all the proprieties sinne onely and infirmities excepted is concordant both with holy Scripture and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie 12. Now this doctrine is crossed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs touching Transubstantiation and the carnall and corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for this they teach that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament with the whole magnitude thereof together with a true order and disposition of parts flesh bloud and bone as he was borne liued crucified rose againe and yet they say that the same body in the Eucharist though it hath magnitude and extention and disposition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body neuerthelesse doth not fill a place neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the place which it possesseth here be pregnant and manifest contradictions Christ hath one body and yet many bodies euen as many as there are consecrated hoasts in the world that is it may be a thousand bodies at once and so his body is one and not one at the same time Againe this body is in heauen in a place and the same body at the same instant is on the Altar without being compassed about with place to be in heauen and to be in earth at one instant are contradictory propositions being vnderstoode of finite substances and not of that infinite essence which filleth all places for they imply thus much to be in heauen and net to be in heauen to be in earth and not to be in earth which be the rules of Logicke and Reason the mother of Logicke cannot be together true Againe at one moment of time to be aboue and yet below to bee remooued farre off and yet bee neere adioyning to come to one place and yet not to depart from another are so meerely opposite to each other that they cannot be reconciled And lastly a body to haue forme magnitude extention and disposition of parts and yet not with these to fill a place is as much as to say it is a body and yet not a bodie it is in a place and yet not in that very same place these are contradictions so euident that it is impossible for the wit of man to reconcile them 13. Notwithstanding the aduocates of the Romish Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske and by many arguments endeauour to reunite these oppositions first by Gods omnipotency secondly by the qualities of a glorified body and thirdly by arguments from the discourse of reason From hence they thus argue All things are possible to God and therefore this is possible neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God saue these things Quae facere non est facere sed deficere as Bellarmine speaketh that is which to doe is not to doe but to vndoe and doe argue rather impotency then potency of which sort that one body should be in many places at once is not saith he because it is not in expresse words excepted in Scripture as to lye and to denye himselfe are To this I answere first that albeit the Scripture doth not expresly except this from Gods omnipotency to make one body to bee in two places at once yet implyedly it doth for it denyeth power or rather weaknesse to God to doe those things which imply contradiction of which kinde this is for one body to be in many places at once And Bellarmine himselfe saith that this is a first principle in the light of nature euery thing is or is not which being taken away all knowledge faileth Secondly I answere that the power of God is not so much to be considered as his will nor what he can doe but what he hath reucaled in his word that hee will doe for if wee argue from his power to the effect Wee may deuise God saith Tertullian to doe any thing because he could doe it And therefore the same Authour saith Dei posse velle est Dei nonposse nolle God can of stones raise vp Children vnto Abraham saith Iohn Baptist Now if any should hence conclude that any of Abrahams children were made of stones in a proper speech all would thinke him to haue no more wit then a stone And to this accordeth Theodoret when hee saith That God can doe all things which hee will but God will not doe any of these things which are not agreeable to his nature But for to make a body to be without quantity and a quantity to be without dimension and dimension without a place that is as much to say a body without a body and quantity without quantity and a place without a place is contrary to Gods nature and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will and so hath no correspondence with his power And lastly I answere that it is no good reason to say God can doe such a thing therefore he doth it but rather thus God will doe such a thing therefore he can doe it and thus the Scripture teacheth vs to reason Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did hee in heauen and in earth and not whatsoeuer hee could doe but whatsouer it pleased him to do and the Leper said to our Sauiour Christ Master if thou wilt thou canst make me cleane no◠if thou canst thou wilt but if thou wilt thou canst 14. Secondly whereas they obiect that Christs bodie after his glorification is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body by reason of that super-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others and thereby as he came to his Apostles the dores being shut and rose out of his graue notwithstanding the stone that lay vpō it and appeared vnto Paul on earth being at the same time in heauen so he is in the Eucharist after a strange and miraculous manner and yet is in heauen at the same time I answere first with Theodoret that Christs bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature but remaineth a true bodie filled with diuine glory And with Augustine that Christ gaue vnto his flesh immortality but tooke not away nature and in another place That though Christ had a spirituall body after his resurrection yet it was a true bodie because he said to his Disciples Palpate videte feele and see and as his body was then after his resurrection so it is now being in the heauens Secondly that when hee came out of the graue the Angell remoued the stone
Prophet Esay saying Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a sure foundation which is a playne and manifest Prophecie of Christ and not of Peter as the Apostle Peter himselfe expoundeth it where by the way we may note the feareful outrage of these Romish Rabbies against the truth of God and the God of truth whilst to the end they may aduance their Popes dignity by Peter they wrest and peruert the Scriptures and apply the Prophecies belonging to the Sonne of God to his seruant Peter and so make Peter himselfe nay the holy Ghost a Lyar. It were not credible that such blasphemous thoughts and words should nestle in the heart and issue out of the mouth of any but that the Apostle Saint Paul hath fore-told vs that in the time of Antichrist because men would not receiue the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God would send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lyes c. But to the point If Christs person be the onely true foundation of the Church in whom all the building being coupled together groweth vnto an holy Temple in the Lord and that not the persons but the doctrine and faith of the Apostles are those secundary foundations which the Scripture speaketh of as hath beene proued out of the Fathers then the opposition is vndefeasible namely that there is but one person the foundation of our Church which is our Lord and Sauiour the Sonne of God Christ Iesus and yet that Peters person should be the foundation of the Church also together with Christ 45. Thirdly I answere that both in truth and also in proprietie of speech there can bee but one foundation of one building those stones that are layd next to the foundation are not properly a secundary foundation but the beginning of the building vpon the foundation and for that cause when Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called twelue foundations it cannot bee vnderstood that they were any wayes properly foundations of the Church either first or second but that our Sauiour who is the substance and subiect of their doctrine is the onely true and singular foundation of the Church and that there is none other besides him for if when it is said that we are built vpō the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as must needes bee because the Prophets are coupled together with the Apostles which liued not in the Christian Church and therefore could not be personall foundations of it and Christ crucified is the substance of their doctrine then it must needes follow that the Apostles meaning is nothing else but that we are built vpon Christ whom the Prophets and the Apostles preached and beleeued in And thus S. Hilary vnderstood it and Saint Ambrose and Anselmus who giuing the foundation of the Church to Peter expoundeth it sometimes of his faith in Christ and sometimes of Christ himselfe in whom he beleeued And thus doe also Salmeron the Iesuite and Cardinall Caietane in their commentaries vpon that place and Peter Lumbard together with the glosse vpon the place interpret And so this distinction of a primary and secundary foundation hath no foundation in the word of God 46. The Gospell teacheth that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Gospell is superiour to another of the same ranke or hath greater power and authority then another in respect of their ministerie but that all Ministers in their seuerall degrees haue equall power of preaching the Gospell administring the Sacraments binding and loosing But the Bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and ouer the whole Church and braggeth that he hath by right a title to both the swords both spirituall and temporall and that both iurisdictions doe originally pertaine to him and from him are conueyed to others c. 47. Bellarmine heere first confesseth and secondly distinguisheth hee confesseth that the Bishop of Rome hath a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and the whole Church and denyeth that eyther those places here quoted or any other doe prooue the contrary 48. To which I answere first that whereas out of Luke 22. 26. and 1. Cor. 3. 4. he extracteth a disparity and an inequality I answere that no man denyeth it and therefore he fighteth with his owne shadow hee should prooue not a bare superiority which wee confesse but a superiority in the same degree as of one Bishop to another and that in power not in execution wherein standeth the point of opposition 49. Secondly whereas he saith that though the power of remitting and retayning finnes and binding and loosing was communicated to all the Apostles yet Peter was ordayned chiefe Pastor ouer them all because our Sauiour Christ sayd vnto him alone Feede my sheepe and To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen I answere that in this hee crosseth both himselfe the Fathers and the truth himselfe for elsewhere hee confesseth that the keyes both of Order and Iurisdiction were giuen to all the Apostles indifferently and therefore it must needes follow that Tibi dabo claues was not spoken singularly to Peter but generally to them all for if Christ gaue the keyes to them all as he confesseth then without doubt he promised them to them all or else his word and his deede should not accord together And againe hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had both power and commission to feede the sheepe of Christ when Mat. 28. he bade them all Goe teach and baptize and they all did put that commission in execution therefore it must needes follow that no singular power was giuen to Peter when as Christ said vnto him Feede my sheepe vnlesse we will say that the rest had not the same commission 50. The Fathers for Saint Cyprian saith plainely that all the Apostles were the same with Peter indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power and that a primary was giuen vnto Peter that the Church might appeare to be one Saint Hilary is of the same minde You O holy and blessed men saith he for the merit of your faith haue receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and obtained a right to binde and loose in Heauen and earth Saint Augustine saith that if when Christ said To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen he spake onely to Peter then the Church hath not the power of the keyes but if the Church hath it then Peter receiuing the keyes represented the Church And lastly Leo one of their owne Popes confesseth asmuch when hee affirmeth that the strength of this power of the keyes passed vnto all the Apostles and the constitution of this decree vnto all the Princes of the Church 51. Lastly the truth for when the Apostles stroue for superiority Christ who is truth it selfe and would not haue concealed so necessary a trueth if
vnderstanding by the Aspe and Cockatrice Lyon and Dragon the Emperour Frederick vpon whose necke hee set his foote vsing those words and all other Kings and Emperours and to proue that he so vnderstood the place when as the Emperor disdayning this pride made answere Not to thee but to Peter the holy Father treading on his necke replied Et mihi Petro Both to mee and to Peter Which storie though it bee branded by Baronius with the marke of a fable yet it is auouched by a full Iurie of witnesses and especially two Gennadius the Patriarke of Constantinople and a Venetian Historian that liued about that time which last onely differeth in the Popes alledging of the Text for he makes the Pope to say not in the second person thou but ambulabo I will walke vpon the Lion and the Adder Againe they interpret that place of Esay 49. 23. They shall worship towards the face of the earth and licke the dust of thy feete as a Prophecie of the Popes sublimitie For saith Turrian the Iesuite Where is this verified but in the kissing of the feete of the Bishop of Rome and yet who knoweth not that this is nothing else but a manifest prediction of the glory of the Church and the conuersion and subiection of Kings and Princes to the Religion of Christ What a wresting of Scripture call you this Are not these strange interpretations 25. But yet heare them which are more strange and ridiculous In the 28. of Esay 16. verse wee read Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation This all know being taught by the interpretation of S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. 6. is to be vnderstood of Christ only and none other yet Bellarmine vnderstands by this tried precious corner stone not Christ but Peter that is as he saith Sedes Romana The Roman Sea Againe we read Iere. 26. 14. Behold I am in your hands doe with mee as you thinke good and right This Text Bonauenture alledgeth to proue that Christ is in the Priests hands at the Masse as a Prisoner not to bee let goe till he haue payd his ransome that is till he haue giuen remission of sinnes contrary to the manifest sense of the place Hosea 1. 11. We read that the children of Iudah and Israel shall be gathered together and appoint themselues one head answerable to that Ioh. 10. 16. There shall be one fold and one shepheard which places properly appertayning to Christ and his Church are ordinarily and blasphemously alledged to proue that the Pope is the head of the Church Againe Cant. 5. 11. His head is as fine gold And Cant. 7. 5. Thy head is like the mount Carmel One of which is the speech of the Church to Christ and the other of Christ to the Church but Bellarmine interprets the first to be spoken Christ and the second of the Pope These be his words The Bridegrome compareth the head of his Spouse to mount Carmel because though the Pope be a great mountaine yet he is nothing but earth that is a man and the Bride compareth the Bridegromes head to the best gold because the head of Christ is God 26. But let vs come a little to the new Testament are they any thing more shie and cautelous in this then in the olde Heare and then iudge Matth. 28. 18. our Sauiour saith to his Disciples All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and earth This in the booke of Ceremonies is expounded of the Pope and also by Stephen the Archbishop of Patauy in the Councill of Laterane Luc. 22. 38. the Apostles say vnto Christ Behold two swords and he answered It is sufficient By this place of Scripture Boniface the eighth challenged to himselfe both temporall and ecclesiasticall authority because Christ said two swords were sufficient and bade Peter not cast away one of them but put it vp into the sheath This exposition flat contrary to the meaning of the Text was not only deuised by a Pope but also approued by Bellarmine and Molina the Iesuite and Balbus with diuers others though I confesse reiected by Stella Maldonate and Arias Montanus But what are these to a Pope that cannot erre and to such an Emminent Cardinall as Bellarmine is So likewise they expound that Text Matth. 17. 24. Solue pro te me Pay for thee and me To signifie that Christs family hath two heads to wit Christ and Peter because they two onely payd and that Peter was chiefe ouer the rest of the Apostles because none of the rest payd as if paying of tribute was a signe of preeminence and not rather of subiection as Iansenius expounds it So Baronius alledgeth that of Act. 10. 13. Arise Peter kill and eate to proue the Popes power to excommunicate the Venetians Kill that is excommunicate and eate that is bring them to the obedience of the Church of Rome This is goodly stuffe indeede sure they stand in neede of arguments to proue their cause that are driuen to these silly shifts So our Country-man Fisher to proue iustification by workes alledgeth that Text of S. Peter 1. Pet. 4. 8. Loue couereth the multitude of sinnes which he expounds thus that loue expiateth and purgeth away the guilt of our sinnes in the sight of God contrary to the direct sense of the holy Ghost Pro. 10. 12. 27. It is a wonder to see how both Bellarmine and all the Patrones of Purgatory wring and wrest the Scripture to vnderprop the Popes Kitchin The Scripture cannot name fire and purging but presently there is Purgatory as Esay 4. 4. and 9. 18. Mal. 3. 3. nor a lake where there is no water but there is Purgatory as Zachar. 9. 11. nor things vnder the earth Phil. 2. 10. Apoc. 5. 3. but there is Purgatory and yet they themselues confesse that they know not whether it be vnder the earth or no because the Church hath not yet defined where it is And Bellarmine bringeth in eight diuers opinions touching the place of Purgatory but two of their expositions touching Purgatory I cannot ouerpasse left I should depriue the Reader of matter of laughter in the midst of this serious discourse and them of commendation of wit for they are witty aboue measure the one is Mar. 13. 34. where it is said in a Parable that a certaine man going into a strange Country leaueth his house and giueth authority to his seruants and commandeth the Porter to watch This man going into a strange Country signifieth the soule say they which by death departeth out of this world his leauing authority with his seruants signifieth that he commandeth his executors to procure with his goods the prayers suffrages of the Church whereby he may be freed from Purgatory hee commandeth the Porter to watch that is he giueth part of his goods to his Pastor that he may diligently
the end whereof for the most part is neuer agreeable to the beginning And this is that which the Philosopher teacheth when he saith that Mendacium de seipso duplex est A lye is double of it selfe And as Chrysostome noteth Mendacia si non habent quem deciptant ipsa sibi mentiuntur Lyes if they haue not one to deceiue they deceiue and beguile themselues So that it must needes follow that that Religion which infoldeth in it selfe contradictions and contrarieties cannot be the truth but must of necessitie be lying and erronious 3. I therefore leaue the Maior thus cleared and come to the proofe of the Minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome is replenished with many contradictions and is at variance and discord in it selfe and therefore cannot stand as our Sauiour concludeth of an house or a kingdom And to shew this to be true let vs first begin with the Sacrament in the doctrine whereof are enwrapped many absurd contradictions as for example 4. It is a ground and principle of their Religion and of ours and of the truth that Christ our Sauiour tooke verily and truely flesh of the Virgine Mary and had a true humane body like to vs in all things sinne onely excepted and therefore that this body of his had all the demensions and circumscriptions of a body and all the properties and qualities naturally belonging thereunto This ground of truth the Church of God hath euer defended against all Heretikes of former and latter times that impugned the same to wit the Marionites the Manichees and the Eutychians with diuers others that thought and taught erroniously concerning the humanity of Christ affirming that he had no true but a fantasticall body Now this error is in outward appearance condemned by the Church of Rome and adiudged as a damnable heresie But if we looke into other of their doctrines and necessary consequences that may be deriued therefrom we shall fiâ—de that they crosse their owne positions and hold in substance as much as the olde Heretikes did 5. For in their doctrine of the Sacrament they teach that Christ gaue his owne naturall body with his owne hands to his Apostles when he said This is my body by which it must needs follow that he both kept his body to himselfe sitting at the Table and also gaue it to his Apostles so that at this first Supper there were thirteene bodies of Christ for euery one by their doctrine had the true naturall body of Christ wholly communicated vnto him Now how is Christs bodie heere a true naturall body being in thirteene places at once From hence thus I reason A true naturall body is circumscribed and can be but in one place at once but by the Popish doctrine of transsubstantiation Christs body was in diuers places at once therefore it was no true naturall body And so the doctrine of Transubstantiation doÌ„th contradict and ouerthrow the doctrine of the truth of Christs humane nature and that not onely after it was glorifyed whereof peraduenture there might be some better shew of reason but euen whilst it was here vpon the earth subiect to all humane sinlesse infirmities yea to death it selfe And this conclusion is not ours but S. Augustines that is Take away from bodies saith he space of place and they will bee no where and because they will be no where therefore they will not be at all And againe in the same Epistle he saith speaking of Christ that â— We must take heed that we do not so build vp the Diuinitie of Christ a man that we take away the truth of his body But the Romanists destroy the truth of Christs humanitie by giuing vnto it an essentiall being and subsisting in many distant places at once and make it no body in truth by denying vnto it a certayne circumscription of one singular place at one time which â—s a necessary accâ—slarie to all quantitiue bodies 6. Bellarmine to salue this contradiction labours mainely stretching all the strings of his wit to the highest straine euen till they cracke againe but all his labour is not worth a rush euery childe may say that he doth but tryfle for first hee saith that Christs body is but in one place locally but in many places sacramentalâ—y Secondly that it is in the consecrated hoast definitiuè and not circumscriptiuè definitely and not circumscriptiuely Thirdly not satisfying himselfe with this euasion neither he saith that it is in the Sacrament Tanquam Deus est in loco As God is in a place that is by a supernaturall presence onely Lastly he flyeth to Gods omnipotency and disclayming all naturall respect saith it is a miracle so that in truth he knoweth not what to say one part of his speech thwarting and crossing another 7. For if the body of Christ bee in the Sacrament sacramentally onely then it is not either definitely as Angels and Spirits are said to be or diuinely as God is for sacramentally to be in a place is to bee there by way of relation and not by corporall existence as all know and so we say that Christs body is there present Againe if it be definitiuely then it cannot be a substantiall body subsisting of parts and members and quantitie as they say Christs body doth in the Sacrament because it is proper to Spirits and intellectuall essences to bee in a place after that manner and not to bodyes as their learned Aquinas telleth vs and if it bee there after the manner of Gods presence then it cannot bee there after the manner of a body vnlesse with the Anthropomorphites he will impiously ascribe a body vnto God And lastly touching Gods omnipotency and the miracle arising therefrom Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth that God cannot doe that which doth imply contradiction for that is to bee vnlike to himselfe and to deny himselfe but these things are contradictories a body with quantity that is with iust length bredth proportion sitting at the Table and at the same time the same body without length bredth or proportion hidden in the bread a body visible and yet the same inuisible at the same instant a body with position and situation of parts and yet the same without position and situation of parts included in euery crâ—mme of the hoast Yea lastly one body sitting at the Table with his Apostles speaking breathing spreading his hands and full of infirmitie the other in the stomacks of his Disciples neither speaking nor breathing nor stirring noâ— subiect to infirmitie Now compare the termes together Sitting and not sitting visible and inuisible with situation and without situation one and not one and all at the same instant and moment of time are grosse contradictions which as Bellarmine confesseth Almighty God himselfe cannot reconcile who by his omnipotent power is able to doe all things but this is nothing and therefore is rather to be accounted a defect of impotency then
6. Lastly concerning Monkes Fryers and Hermites they are names neuer heard of in the Apostles time nor in the purer age of the Church The first Hermite was one Anthony who liued three hundred yeeres after Christ who taught others that state of life and learned it of none as confesseth Bellarmine Monkes had no being in the best times of the Church sayth Agrippa though Bellarmine is not ashamed to say that the Apostles were the first Monks in Christianity who notwithstanding liued not alone in cels but went about the world preaching the Gospell some of them had wiues also both which are contrarie to the Monkish profession but Fryers are yet of a far later impressiō The orders of Dominick Francis sprung vp vnder Innocent the third in the time of the Laterane Councill about the yeere 1220. For when Pope Innocent would not be perswaded to confirme to Dominick his order of preaching Fryers hee dreamed that the Church of Laterane was ready to fall and that Dominick came in and with his shoulders vnder-propped it Vpon which dreame he presently sent for Dominick and granted his petition and sure not vaine was that dreame for had not Fryers beene the vpholders and chiefe Pillars of the Popes Church it had fallen longere this The croutched Fryers otherwise called the crosse-bearers sprang vp about the same time for Pope Innocent raising an army against the Albingenses whom the Pope accounted for Heretikes caused the souldiers to be signed with a crosse on their brest whereupon they were called crosse-bearers or croutched Fryers All the other orders of Fryers which amount as some reckon them to an hundreth at least are most of them of later institution And most true is the assertion of Wiclif that Fryers were neuer knowne in the world before the yeare 1200. 7. The Iesuites tooke their beginning about threescore and fifteene yeeres since For in the yeare 1540. their order was first confirmed by Pope Paul the third to Ignatius Loyola the lame souldier the chiefe Father and Patriarch of that viperous brood at the request and intercession of Cardinall Contarenus so that they are not yet beyond the bounds of a mans age and neuerthelesse they are growne to such maturity of craft and deceit that all other orders are but nouices to them they are the onely fellowes of the world for subtill practices and daring enterprises and now the chiefest props of the Papall sea For Dominick was weary of bearing that burden and for the ease of himselfe suffered Loyola to put vnder his shoulder and so now all the burden lyeth vpon him let him hold vp stiffely therefore or els all will goe to wracke 8. But now to the purpose Where were all these orders in the Apostles times and in the Primitiue age of the Church Then men reioyced to be called by the Name of Christ now these fellowes glory to be called by the name of Dominick or Francis and as if Christians was too base a name for them they will be called Iesuites of Iesus they say the Sonne of God but more truely of Bar-Iesus the Sorcerer that withstood the preaching of Paul was a peruerter of the straight wayes of the Lord or of a French weapon called Gesu◠wherewith these same bloudy Traitours vse to murther kings and Princes if they withstand their purposes whereupon is that elegant Epigram A Gesis sunt indita nomina vobis Quae quia sacrilegi Reges torquetis in omnes Inde sacrum nomen sacrum sumpsistis omen 9. But to shut vp in one word all the villany of these monstrous late-borne orders of Fryers let Aretine an Italian Poet describe them Frate sayth he in Italian is a Fryer euery letter of which word doth represent the nature of that generation for Furfanto a thiefe Ribaldo a filthy Ribald Asino an asse Traditore a Traitour Eretico an Heretike All together make the true and perfect definition of a Fryer Or as Lincolniensis defineth him A dead carcase risen out of his graue wrapped in a winding sheet and carryed among men by the Deuill But my purpose is not to bring vpon the stage their filthy and abominable liues hee that will see that let him read Clemangis in his booke of the state of the Church which hee wrote about two hundreth yeeres since And Cornelius Agrippa of the vanity of Sciences And Polidore Virgill and Aluarus Pelagius and Palingenius with Ariosto an Italian Poet c. and he shall finde matter not onely of wonder and admiration but also of griefe and lamentation that the Church of God should bee so long pestered with such filthy dregges but it is sufficient for this place to haue showne that neither their name nor orders were once heard of in the Primitiue Church 10. Thus much touching their persons Now for the iurisdiction exercised by these persons how not onely transcendent but repugnant it hath beene and is at this day to that of the Apostles and Primitiue Church their both Lordly titles and tyrannous practice doth clearely demonstrate For their titles which of the Apostles either assumed to himselfe which they might haue iustly done if it had beene their due or receiued from others these titles Vniuersall Bishop Head of the Church High Priest of the world Prince of Priests and Christs Vicar vpon earth c But the Pope of Rome doth challenge to himselfe all these yea more then these that he is as it were a god vpon earth hauing fulnesse of power and yet more aequè ac Christus Deus A God aswell as Christ a beeing of the second intention compounded of God and man and yet more Deus vindictae a God of reuenge and another god vpon earth and lastly Stupor mundi the wonderment of the world neither God nor man but a neuter betwixt both Could such intolerable pride euer enter into the heart of a man or could the tongue of any wight liuing dare to belch out such horrible blasphemies Surely none but hee that is that man of sinne who sitteth in the Temple of God as God and to whom is giuen a mouth to blaspheme the God of Heauen and in whose fore-head is written this name of blasphemy Deus sum errare non possum I am God I cannot erre But to the point Did euer Peter whose successour the Pope claimeth to bee challenge to himselfe any such titles or did euer any of the other Apostles or any Bishop in the Primitiue Church for the space of three hundreth yeeres Peter was so farre from this pride that hee giueth charge to all Elders of the Church that they should not behaue themselues as Lords ouer Gods heritage And in that very place hee equalleth himselfe to the rest and the rest to himselfe calling himselfe a fellow Elder and in another place hee calleth all the Disciples his brethren yea all the Israelites his brethren and all Christians his brethren behold his humility But the Pope acknowledgeth no
sentences heere and there that see me to make for their purpose contrary to the whole scope and drift of the writer or lastly by blemishing our whole Religion by some sinister or exorbitant opinion maintained by some one or other vnaduised fellow though it bee contrary to the whole current of all other writers on our side as if for one mans errour wee were all flat Heretikes or because one souldier playeth the dastard therefore the whole army were cowards These bee their tricks of Legerdemaine by which they indeuour to disgrace our Religion and to countenance their owne but Veritas magna est preualebit I hope so to dispell and scatter these mists by the light of truth that they shall vanish like smoake and the truth bee more resplendent like the Sunne comming out of a cloud 61. To the purpose first they exclaime that our Religion is an enemy to good workes and that wee esteeme of them as not necessary to saluation which damnable errour some of them ascribe vnto vs as our direct doctrine others as a consequence of our doctrine and our secret meaning but that both are lying slanders I appeal first to our doctrine it selfe which is so cleare in this point that no man can doubt thereof but hee that is musled with malice for this we hold that though faith be alone in the worke of iustification yet that saith euer worketh through loue and is great with good workes as a woman with child which it bringeth forth also when occasion serueth and that if it bee disioyned from good workes it is but a dead carkas of faith yea the faith of Deuils and hypocrites and not of the elect And this as it is the constant doctrine of all our diuines so is it principally of Luther whom our aduersaries accuse as the chiefest enemy to good workes for thus hee writeth in one place touching the efficacy of faith Faith is a liuely and powerfull thing not an idle cogitation swimming vpon the toppe of the heart as a fowle vpon the water but as water heated by fire though it remaine water still yet it is no more cold but hote and altogether changed so faith doth frame and fashion in a man another mind and other senses and altogether maketh him a new man Again in another place he sayth that the vertue of faith is to kill death to damne hell to be sinne to sinne and a deuill to the deuill that is to be sins poison and the Deuils confusion Thus hee speaketh concerning the powerful efficacy of that true iustifying faith which wee rely our saluation vpon and they condemne as a nulli-fidian portion And touching good works their necessity and excellency heare how diuinely he writeth in one place Out of the cause of iustification no man can sufficiently commend good workes in another One good worke proceeding from faith done by a Christian is more pretious then heauen or earth the whole world is not able to giue a sufficient reward for one goodworke and in another place It is as necessary that godly teachers doe as diligently vrge the doctrine of good workes as the doctrine of faith for the Deuill is an enemy to both what can bee spoken more effectually for the extolling of the excellency of good wâ—rkesâ— and yet these fellowes make Luther the greatest aduersarie to them 62. Secondly I appeale to themselues many of the greatest Doctors amongst whom doe cleare vs from that imputation Maldonate The Protestants doe say that iustifying faith cannot bee without good workes Viega The Protestants affirme that iustification sanctification are so ioyned together that they cannot be parted Stapleton All Protestants none excepted teach that faith which iustifieth is liuely working by charity and other good workes Lastly Bellarmine The Protestants say that faith cannot stand with euill workes for hee that hath a purpose to sin can conceiue no faith for the remission of his sin and that faith alone doth iustifie but yet is not alone and that they exclude not the necessity but onely the merite of good workes nor the presence but the efficacy to iustifie Now then with what face can they bolster out this slaunder against our doctrine and accuse vs to be like the Simonian Heretike who taught that a man need not regard good workes and Eunomians who defended that perseuerance in sinne did not hinder saluation so that wee beleeued This is the first blasphemie against our Religion wherein they doe not so much thwart vs as crosse themselues and that one may see yet more clearely this to bee a malicious slaunder hearken what Bellarmine sayth concerning Luthers opinion of Christian liberty Luther seemeth sayth he to teach that Christian liberty consisteth in this that a godly conscience is free not from doing good workes but from being accused or defended by them let Luther himself speake againe By faith sayth he we are freed not from works but from opinion of workes that is from a foolish presumption of iustification to bee obtained by workes by all which we may easily iudge of the meaning of those sentences obiected Faith alone doth saue and infidelity alone doth condemne and where faith is no sinne can hurt nor condemne that they are to be vnderstood partly of sinnes before iustification and partly of such sinnes after as destroy not faith nor raigne in the beleeuer nor are perseuered in but repented of and laboured against and thus our Religion is iustified by the very aduersaries thereof from this great crime imputed vnto it 63. Againe they accuse vs as maintainers of this doctrine that all the workes of iust men are mortall sinnes and of this they make Luther Calume and Melancthon to be Patrones but with what shamelesse impudency let the world iudge To begin with Caluine these be his words Dum sancti ductu Spiritus c. i. Whilst being holy wee walke in the wayes of the Lord yet least being forgetfull of our selues wee should waxe proud there remain reliques of imperfection which may minister vnto vs matter of humiliation againe the best worke that can be wrought by iust men yet is besprinkled and corrupted with the impurity of the flesh and hath as it were some dregs mixed with it let the holy seruant of God chuse out of his whole life that which he shall thinke to haue beene most excellent let him well consider euery part thereof hee shall without doubt finde in one place or other something which sauours of the fleshes corruption seeing our alacrity in well doing is neuer such as it ought to be but our weakenes great in hindering the course although we see that the blots where with the Saints workes are stayned are not obscure yet grant that they are but very small workes shall they not offend the eyes of God before whom the starres themselues are not pure we haue not one worke proceeding from the Saints which if it be censured
assertion that God can not make those things that bee done to be vndone doth not destroy but build vp the omnipotency of God seing as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth Facere contradictoria non est efficere sed deficere to doe things contradictorie is not to effect and doe but to faile and vndoe and therefore an argument of impotency rather then of omnipotency and for that cause Pererius another Iesuite auoucheth the same doctrine with vs in these words God is said to be omnipotent not onely because he can do whatsoeuer is contained in the world but also because nothing is impossible vnto him except that which to be done implieth contradiction what an impudent flander then is this to say that wee deny Gods omnipotency by affirming that hee cannot make that to bee vndone which is done especially seeing wee say further with Tertullian and Saint Augustine that therefore God cannot do it because he will not do it he cannot therefore deny himselfe not make that to be vndone which is done because hee will not and he will not because it would rather be an argument of weakenes then a power in him so to doe 76. Againe they challenge Caluine of denying the immortality of the soule And why thinke you Because they would make him to say that the soules of the iust are kept in certaine secret receptacles till the day of Iudgement and doe not till then inioy the presence of God Another palpable slander for first Caluine doth not say so secondly if hee did yet it doth not follow thereupon that hee denyeth the immortality of the soule for the first let Caluine first speake for himselfe and then let his aduersaries also speak for him Touching the place where the soules of the iust remaine after death he affirmeth plainely in diuers places that they liue with God and enioy the happy felicity of his kingdome though their perfect happinesse is deferred till the second comming of Christ when their bodies and soules shal be re-united and made partakers of the same blessednes This he testifieth not in one or two but in many places how therefore can they lay to his charge that opinion touching secret receptacles where soules are reserued till the day of the resurrection 77. Mary sayth Bellarmine in two respects first because he maketh Christ alone to haue entred into the Sanctuary of heauen and there to present the prayers of the people resting in the vtter court to God secondly because he sayth that the Saints departed are ioyned together with vs by faith therefore sayth Bellarmine He must needs deny that they see God seeing where faith is there is not sight But his conclusion in both is false though the premises be true for as the Atrium or vtter Court of the Temple to which Caluine alludeth was a part of the Temple so by proportion the vtter Court of Heauen is a part of Heauen witnesse their owne Ribera expounding that place of Exodus whereunto Caluine alludeth and therefore Caluine if hee did say so doth not banish the iust soules out of Heauen but onely placeth Christ our high Priest betwixt God and them But what if hee speake onely of the Saints liuing and not departed and meane by the vtter Court not any part of Heauen but the Church militant heere on earth If this be true what shamelesse slaunderers are these fellowes to wring a sense out of Caluine whereof there is no show in the words let the place be consulted and viewed and their malice and impudency will appeare most notorious 78. Againe that faith which hee speaketh of in the second place is nothing else but their stedfast beliefe and expectation of the resurrection of their bodies which liueth in the faithfull soules separated from this mortality vntill the full accomplishment of their happinesse aswell as in the Saints militant neither can I conceiue any absurdity in this that the Saints departed should haue faith in this respect seeing they must needs haue hope which two Theologicall vertues are so perplexed together that one cannot bee without the other and therefore Clemens Alexandrinus calleth hope the blood of faith and Saint Paul sayth 1. Cor. 13. that faith and hope shall cease together when charity shall suruiue and remaine If then the Saints departed hope for the resurrection of their bodies why may they not bee said also to beleeue it and yet for all that be in heauen too 79. Neither is the other place obiected out of Caluine by Bellarmine any whit repugnant to this doctrine for though he sayth that it is a foolish and rash part to dispute curiously what the place is that the Saints possesse in Heauen and whether they inioy the full ioyes of heauen or no yet in the very same place hee affirmeth that they are in the presence of Christ in Paradise and that they onely expect the fruition of that promised glory which their bodies also shal be possessors of at the comming of Christ 80. Thus we haue heard Caluine speake for himselfe Let vs now heare his enemies speaking for him in this case then which there cannot be a stronger argument of his innocency and in this two may stand for all Bellarmine is the first hee directly confesseth that Caluine placed the soules of the Saints in heauen euen before the comming of Christ and to him subscribeth Fenardentius another Iesuite who affirmeth that this was Caluines opinion that the faithfull when they should depart out of this world doe behold God neere vnto them and as it were set before their eyes And thus Caluine is quit from this enditement by the witnesse of his profest aduersaries 81. Secondly let it be granted which neuerthelesse can no wayes be prooued that Caluine held this opinion touching the residence of soules in some secret place yet it doth not follow that therefore he denyed the immortality of the soule For then Origen Iustine Martyr Tertullian Irenaeus Lactantius Victorinus Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Ambrose Bernard and diuers others of the ancient godly Fathers should be enwrapped within the same errour who all held that opinion touching soules departed and yet were as farre from gain-saying or once imagining any opposition to the soules immortality as these backbiting Shemiâ—s are from charity and truth 82. Another lowde and lewde slander of theirs against our Religion is that it maintaineth and warranteth rebellion and disobedience against lawfull Princes Which if they could prooue wee would confesse that our Religion was naught seeing Gods word commandeth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers but yet not worse then theirs which is without all contradiction guilty of this crime which they impute vnto vs as hath beene prooued but let vs heare their proofes they are of two sorts first from the doctrines of some of our learned writers and secondly from the practice of our professors In the first kind they obiect Caluine Beza Luther Knox Buchanan