certaine external meanes and helpes are required yet those moue vs nothing without the working of Gods holy spirit And he much misliketh of them that teach that our faith must rest vpon that point That we beleue that the church is true or cannot erre For therevpon he gathereth this absurditie that our faith should be grounded vpon the truth not of God but of man He also plainly affirmeth that if a man should aske how the faithfull do know that God hath reuealed that which they beleeue they cannot answere by the authoritie of the Church but it is by the inward light of Gods spirit that they know the same If now thou aske me how I know the Scriptures to be the Scriptures I answere out of Canus not by the authority of the Church but by the motion of Gods spirit and witnesse thereof If thou vrge that place of Augustine Canus telleth thee that they who are become Christians are not so brought to beleeue the Scriptures but onely Infidels and Nouices in religion So that this place serueth nothing to obiect against vs who professe Christianitie alreadie and beleeue the worde which the Manichies did not of whom and to whom Saint Augustine there writeth But we had neede out of that place to admonish you that in respect of that reuerence which with one consent al that professe Christianitie doe yeeld vnto the scriptures you would be ashamed so to depraue and despise them so to abuse and reiect them at your owne pleasure as you alwayes haue done You make vnlawfull that which God hath mad lawfull as for example It was lawfull in the Apostles time for euerie Priest Dion Carth. 1. Tim. 3. Bishop and Deacon to haue one wife but now by the appointment of the Pope they may not haue a wife sayth a friend of your owne a bird of your owne nest So that not the scripture or the will of God but the worde of the Pope must be the rule of our life so that whereas Augustine for the Church beleeued the scriptures you for your Churches sake controll the scriptures and disobey them And for the establishing of that vndue honour which they would bestow vpon the most happie mother of Christ the virgin Mary Marke the boldnesse of Durand a great piller in the Popish Church Rathon◠di◠li. 4. rub 6. who writeth thus Although it is said in the Scriptures that Christ rising did first appeare to Marie Magdalen yet it is more truly beleeued that first of all he appeared to his mother Is it not plaine how that to establish their foolish toyes he giueth the lie to that word that is onely true O grosse boldnesse Seeing therefore this worde hath not onely testimonie within vs which is the strongest witnesse but also with so great consent is knowne to be Gods worde be ashamed now to call it into question or to put it to the triall of the Church by which the Papists alwaies vnderstand the Romish Church whether it shal be allowed for currant or not For in deede this blasphemous sense which as I haue shewed euen their owne friends can in no wise like of is now the cōmon exposition of those words of S. Aug. I will not beleeue the scriptures vnlesse the Church of Rome do allow the Bookes for Canonicall and expound them as she shall thinke good And thus much to answer this their common obiection What the Catholike Church is that is mentioned in the Creede CHAP. 6 THE PROTESTANTS VVE say with the Apostle Saint Paul that the catholike church which is spoken of in the Creede s. Tim. 3. Is the house of God the pillar and ground of truth And with the fathers that it is the companie of all the faithfull of all times and of all places And with Saint Iohn The Bride of the Lambe Apoc. 21 9. and the bodie of Christ And therefore that the wicked and faithlesse are not of this Church nor can be counted of this companie THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome to get a Catholike Church admit good and bad to be of their Church namely reprobates wicked Bellar. de Eccle. li. 3. cap. 2. and vngodly ones Neither do thinke that they neede any inward vertue to bee of their Church but onely that they professe religion and be vnder the Pope Well may they in some sort seeme to haue a Catholike Church because all is fish that comes into their net but holy apostolike it shal not be nor Catholike as in the Creed is meant Wherein this is worthie to be reproued in them that whereas they crie out in worde and writing The Catholike church of Rome and vnlesse you beleeue the Catholike Church you cannot be saued And for proofe hereof they alledge this article I beleeue the Catholike church yet when they should tell vs what this Catholike church is wherevnto we must so necessarily be subiect they onely paint vnto vs I know not what Romish Church The catholike church in the Creed and the Romish contrary which is no more like the true Catholike church than that church of Israel when it was started aside from the true worship of God was like to the true church of God that remained amongest the people of the Iewes as by these few reasons may appeare The catholike church is One One that is to say one companie and vnited and knit togither by one spirite and the selfe same graces but the reprobate and vngodly who fill vp a place in the Romish catholike church neither are one company with the Saints nor vnited to them by the same spirit and graces to be partakers of the communion of Saints Therefore that catholike and the Romish catholike Church are not all one Secondly that Church is Holy Holy and that not in part but perfectly euen without spot or wrinckle Ephe. 5.26.27 For in our Creed we doe not speake of the church that is but that shal be not that which we see with our eye but by faith not that which is perfected but hoped for which we shall not in deede behold with our eyes Reuel 21 vntill it come downe from heauen as saint Iohn speaketh of the heauenly Ierusalem Apoc. 11 which as witnesseth saint Ambrose doth represent the Church that shall bee after the ende of the world Apoc. 21 Of which minde is also saint Augustine But the Romish catholike church is of omnigatheroms as people goe to faires or markets of all sorts and qualities And although a man haue not one good thing in him not one crum of honestie hee is good enough to make vp a number in the Church of Rome but such a church is not holy and therefore not that that is mentioned in the Creede Thirdly that church is catholike Catholike that is as all the godly haue acknoledged it the mother of all Christians the companie of all the saints both in heauen and vpon earth But the Romish catholike church
that with diligence the scriptures must be searched and without loathsomnes yea with reuerence receiued But that wee may the more easily and euidently see how little these fathers do make for them it is necessary to see with what purpose and to what end these say that they do write of the hardnesse of the scriptures Namely not to discourage men from reading of them but to stirre them vp to more diligence and carefulnesse in reading them As may appeare by the earnest and vehement exhortations which the ancient fathers doe make not onely to all men generally Hom. 9. in epist ad Coloss but euen to lay men in particular and especially Heare saith Chrysostome all yee lay men that are present and that haue wiues and children howe the Apostle commandeth euen you especially to reade the Scriptures and not to reade them only as it were by chance but with great diligence with many other such like exhortations in that place as also in many other of his writings Saint Hierome in sundry of his epistles vnto godly women exhorteth them to diligent reading of the same he also to intice them to be conuersant therein dedicateth vnto some women som of his treatises vpon the scriptures Yea and in his preface vnto Paula and Eustochium two women before his first booke vpon the epistle to the Ephesians which is the place out of which Bellarmines second argument out of Hierome was fetched doth highly commend the study and knowlege of the scriptures And in his preface vnto his second booke doth extoll Marcella for her diligent study therein Hom. 20 in Ios preferring her before himselfe Thou wilt say saith Origen the scriptures are hard yet it is good to reade them And wisheth that we all would doe as it is written namely Search the Scriptureâ— â—â—â—nelius Agryppa reporteth 〈◊〉 S 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that in the first Nicene councell it was decreed that no christian man should be without a bible in his house And Chrysostome exhorteth euen lay men and that very earnestly to get them Bibles Hom. 9 in Coloss or at the least the new Testament So then wee see to what intent the Fathers tell vs that the Scriptures are hard namely because they would not haue vs to be careles in the study of them and negligent or to imagine when wee knowe somewhat that we neede knowe no more but as Hierome would haue vs to doe Epistol ad Pâ—â— liâ— um We must cracke the nut if wee will eate the kernell We must take paines to get knowledge assuring our selues that wee can neuer learne too much because wee can neuer knowe enough And saint Augustine in his Confessions saith Liâ— 6. cap. â— they ought to bâ— read of all But the Papists in complaining of the hardnes of the scriptures shoot at an other marke that is to make the simple people afraide that they meddle not with it that they reade it not neither yet heare it read vnto them So that besides the other slaunders wherewith they seeke to staine Gods word proclaiming it not to be sufficient but that it wanteth many things and may be wrested to any fence they adde this also that it is hard and therefore dangerous for them that are not learned to reade it And this is the very cause why they speake so much of the hardnesse of the scriptures as not onely their writings and words proclaime in all places but also their cruell executions against such as haue had in their mother tongue For libr. ◠〈◊〉 is and Momun in the beginning I say not the bible or the New Testament but euen the Lordes prayer or the tenne commaundements which they would seeme to allow vnto the people Gregory Nazianzene doth write In Apologâ—â— that some ancient men amongst the Hebrewes report of a custome which the Iewes had which he also commendeth which was that some places of the scriptures were not permitted 〈…〉 body to reade before they were fiue and twentie yeeres old but the rest of the scripture they should learne euen from their childehoode Where note that they make no difference of any state calling or sexe but of age onely and that when they were fiue and twentie yeares olde they might reade any parcell of Scripture But the Papists permit not any parcell of the scriptures to the lay people nay hardly to their priests but onely as they will followe such sence thereof as they appoint Yea I haue knowen bachellors of diuinity admitted to reade some booke of the master of sentences as the vse then was when they proceeded so that this was their conclusion They are hard therefore you shall not reade them That the scriptures are so hard as they are Papists to be blamed for hardnesse of the Scripture by their and to so many none are to bee blamed but the church of Rome that so much complaineth of their hardnesse but in trueth are sory they are so easie as is most plaine to see first in that they would not haue them in the mother tongues but when they see there is no remedy but that the scripture will be published whether they will or not they send vs a Testament from Rhennes Translations so full of Hebrew Latine and Greeke wordes turned into English letters that all the world may see that they meane nothing lesse than that they that reade it should vnderstand it And yet they cry The scripture is hard Secondly they are the cause of the hardnesse of the scriptures when in the most plaine places that are they will not suffer men to follow that sence which the words themselues and the circumstances both before and after doe affoord Interpretations but they must haue their interpretation from the church of Rome without whose approbations they must neither trust their own eies for seeing nor their eares for hearing neither yet their wit for vnderstanding of any thing When they change the very sence and wordes and where they finde Lord they put Lady as in that blasphemous booke called the psalter of the Virgine Marie they doe through the whole psalmes and some other places When the first promise that was made of that blessed seede that should breake the head of the serpent they apply as much as they dare vnto the Virgine Marie when these wordes shall be currant stuffe to proue worshipping of the Saints departed In as much as yee haue doone it to the least of these my brethren Math. 25.40 yee haue doone it vnto mee which are spoken of our goodnesse to Gods needy creatures aliue as Eckius imagineth in his common places De vener sanct when I say the people are taught thus to vnderstand the scriptures must they not needes bee hard Lastly the greatest cause of this hardnesse is that the people are not acquainted with them for they are forbidden to reade them nay Forbidding to reade scripture it hath beene death to haue them found with the
deified it is not This seemeth to bee all one with the heresie of Nestorius who taught that Christ had a defiled bodie But afterwards maister Bellarmine perchaunce not liking very well of his first answere seemeth to me to haue chaunged his opinion as after shall appeare But here in my iudgement he is of another minde than Durand hath learned of Pope Innocentius of the which I spake before in the comparison For there Durand sayth that it miraculously ceaseth to be Christs bodie But if we apply this similitude brought by Bellarmine it should seeme that he will haue Christs body to remaine but not to be hurt as the deitie which is euerie where coÌ„tinueth and yet is hurt of nothing But if he be of one minde with Pope Innocentius and Durand I would then faine know where that bodie of Christ that ceaseth to bee in that Mouseaten host doth rest or what becommeth of it But in the ende of that Chapter because manie sayth he mislike that Christes bodie should bee eaten of Mice or beasts When he was an infant he might so be and therefore why may hee not much more now in another shape and when he cannot bee hurt thereby bee eaten of them Before he said he could not bee eaten Nowe hee sayth he may Whereby it appeareth he knew not well what to say These straights are they brought vnto whilest they seeke to maintaine that their doctrine of Transubstantiation See of this point Bell. de Euch. li. 1 ca. 9. in the beginning Now beside these and many other absurdities which follow this doctrine of transubstantiation as that Christ hath his owne body the darknes and hardnes of that doctrine is such as that the schoolemen cannot agree vpon it how Christs body should bee in the forme of bread Whosoeuer should read the third book that master Bellarmine writeth of the Eucharist wherein he endeuoureth to establish this doctrine De Euch. li. 1. cap. 6. shall find it too hard for them that haue many yeares professed learning to vnderstand their subtilties in this point And who then can imagine that our sauiour Christ would deliuer vnto his Church for Sacraments which should bee common to all those things that should containe such hidden mysteries as the verie learned men cannot vnderstand De doct Christ li. 3. cap. 9. Nay Bellarm. thinketh it absurd so to thinke or that saint Augustine would haue commended our Sacraments as most easie when all the learned finde these popish opinions to be most intricate and hard We haue seene the absurditie of this doctrine now let vs view the weaknesse of the proofe In the scriptures for the most part they can finde but one place Take eate this is my bodie Tit. Transub Ioh. 6.51 For that which Eckius in his Enchiridion alledgeth out of the sixt of saint Iohn his Gospel The bread which I will giue is my flesh his owne friends thinke it not worth citing for this poynt For what a reason is this The breade which I saide before came downe from heauen is my flesh therefore the Sacramentall bread is transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ But for those wordes This is my bodie alledged out of the three first Euangelists and saint Paul because they are the verie rocke and refuge which at all needes they haue recourse vnto for helpe of this their doctrine of Transubstantiation it would be somewhat particularly examined Sundry arguments therefore I haue to induce me to affirme that this place can not proue transubstantiation The first is this If these words This is my body do proue transubstantiation then is that doctrine proued by plaine and expresse wordes of scripture But by expresse words of scripture that doctrine cannot be proued therfore that place proueth not TraÌ„substantiation The truth of the first proposition is apparant because either the plaine and literall sense of these wordes prooue that doctrine or else it is not proued therby And the minor or 2. proposition is not mine but it is the words of Mel. Canus a learned Papist of D. Chadsy De locis Theol. li. 3. cap. 3. Disp cum Pet. Mart. de Eucharistia Therfore the first being true and the second being by them confessed the conclusion must needes be strong against them The second argument maister Bellarmine will affoord me The Sacraments are instituted and appointed by such wordes as may giue least occasion of errour or doubt for this Bellarmine proueth in many words De Euchar. li. 1. ca. 9. and by many reasons But so to expounde this place that Transubstantiation should be forced out of it bringeth many obscurities and doubts therefore Transubstantiation is not to be prooued out of these wordes The first proposition is Bellarmines as I haue sayd and therefore I neede not proue it That so to expound the wordes This is my bodie that Transubstantiation should be proued out of it is to make Christ speake very obscurely and doubtfully appeareth by their manifest wringing and wresting of the place For the word This spoke by Christ Bellar. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 11. when he had the bread in his hand they will not haue to be vnderstood of the bread no nor of the bodie of Christ but somthing contained vnder the forme of bread as Bellarmine out of Thomas of Aquine and out of Guitimund teacheth And I pray you when shall the people vnderstand what that third thing is that is contained vnder those formes But why should I looke for this at the hands of the vnlearned seeing that the learnedst can not shew what this is Are not such darke deuises the cause of many errours Where now is I pray you that plainnesse and aptnes of speach in the institution of a sacrament which before Belarmine commended Not in such vnsauorie subtilties Bellarmi de â—â—â—â— ar li. 3. cap. 8. Yea it is by him flatly confessed that although in respect of that regard they haue of the councels and the Church their Diuines agree herein yet in the maner thereof they disagree verie much But what should I stand vpon this point cap. 9. Bellarmine which in the first booke of the Eucharist doth make his argument against Luther of the easinesse and of the plainnesse of the wordes that belong to the institution of the Sacrament proouing that of necessitie they must so be least thereby men should take occasion of errour or doubting and condemneth Luthers doctrine as obscure as though hee had beene then in a sound sleepe and nowe were well wakened li. 3. cap. 8. In his third booke he commendeth their doctrine vnto vs concerning the Sacrament because it is exceeding hard and condemneth ours because it is so easie that euery bodie may vnderstande it Well to be short thus I reason The wordes of the institution must be taken in the plainest sense or meaning But that sense that is wrested out of them for Transubstantiation is not plaine Therefore that sense of those
is as strong as the second and is this Breaking cannot be spoken wel of the bodie and in this place which is broken for you cannot be true of the bread for the bread is not broken for vs therefore it must be vnderstoode of Christs bodie in forme of bread In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar translation which somtime he and his fellowes doe highly extoll for that saith which shal be deliuered And so doe Chrysostome Ierome Primatius Theophilact yea and Thomas of Aquine also al of them expounding these very words Epist 3 And Cyprian in his second booke of Epistles and so doe our English Remists translate it likewise Al whose translations do sufficiently proue that they espied not any such mysterie in that worde is broken but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true sence of it shal be deliuered to signifie that the body of Christ should suffer the torments vpon the crosse which S. Paul did expresse by the word of breaking And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine who woulde faine haue the Eucharist to be a sacrifice say it is a Representatiue sacrifice of Christs passiō 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. by which passion hee gaue his body to death for vs. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representatiue sacrifice read and peruse who so will the words of the institution it will not be found that our Sauiour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the vse of the sacrament which then he instituted As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speake of the shedding of the cup not of the bloud Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28 Mar. 14.24 make the matter more plaine and tell vs that the bloud of Christ is shed Doth not this wringing wresting of scriptures to force them from their true and natural sence to serue their turne manifestly argue that it must needs bee a weake tottering building that is raysed vpon so bad foundations and that it is but for want of better proofe that they are faine to scrape togither such poore helps The second argument of M. Bellarmines to proue a sacrifice by the institution is this in effect Christs body bloud are receiued in the Eucharist therefore they cannot but be sacrificed Which argumēt for vs to deny it is sufficient seeing that M. Bellarmine himselfe seemeth to inforce this only against them that confesse a real presence in with vnder the bread and yet deny the sacrifice But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties wherof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist M. Bellar. can finde them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests who are willed to sacrifice in these words if ye wil trust Bellar. Do this Who would euer haue gathered thus that had eies to looke vpon the words of the institution You must Doe this ergo you must sacrifice Yea Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter to be half ashamed of this argument and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius because they say that with the papists in that place those words To do is to sacrifice and therfore it needeth no farther answer But for the act of sacrifising it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out neither knoweth he howe to distinguish betweene that act I meane the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he and other actions in the supper And yet master Bellarmine is sure that such a thing there is there but where to finde it he cannot tell Is this thinke you good dealing for them that should be good guides vnto others to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themselues The words for a sacrament are very plaine but if you would follow with a bloud-hound you can neuer finde a sacrifice out of those wordes As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers they shall haue this answere The Eucharist is in sundry respectes called a sacrifice A sacrifice of the fathers not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of praiers and thankes giuings and duties of loue but also and that especially because it is a memoriall of the true sacrifice which Christ offered for vs vpon the crosse Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which we deny not but that it is a sacrifice properly so called which the papists affirme but cannot proue Argument 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no answer for it is so weak that euery child may see the fault of it For out of those wordes Act. 13.2 As they ministred vnto the Lord speaking of Paul Barnabas others ministring seemeth to be or may be taken for sacrifycing ergo it is takē there for sacrifycing saith M. Bellar. Iudas seemed to be a true seruant of Christ but was not Lib. 1. de M◠ssa ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to say such a thing may be therfore it is so Argument 8 Rhem. Test De missa li. 1 cap. 14 But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinths which the Papists make their strong bulwarke maister Bellarmine findeth three arguments His first argument is this Euerie altar which in deed is an altar is builded for offering of sacrifices But the Lords table after a sort is an altar therefore it is for offering of sacrifices We will not striue with master Bellarmine much for this point for we will confesse that such sacrifices are offered vpon the altar as maister Bellarmine confesseth the altar to be The Lordes table saith he is a kinde of altar or an altar after a sort So we say that sacrifices after a sort namely spirituall sacrifices are offered thereupon His second reason out of this place is a lowde lie For thus hee saith For the Apostle speaketh plainly that we that are faithfull doe so receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord at the table of the Lord as the Iewes their sacrifices or the Gentiles their meates offered to Idols on their altars or tables And because hee cannot proue this to bee true you must trust him of his owne worde for he bringeth no proofe at all Let the indifferent reader peruse the place and marke his false dealing with it The wordes cited by him begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter and continue vnto the 22. the summe whereof is this as they that consider the place may see As by participating at the Lords table you are made partakers of Christ and ioyned togither amongst your selues in one bodie verse 16 17 so by participating at the table of Idols you are made partakers of them and ioyned in fellowship with the Idolaters But that which he telleth vs is so plaine in these wordes cannot be gathered out of them And this
commaund that ceremonie to bee vsed so neither did himselfe practise it any more but that once as may appeare in sundrie places where hee authoriseth his Apostles to preach without breathing vpon them And nowe for laying on of handes which many times the Apostles vsed wee haue not only the testimonie of manie in the popish church that thinke it not to be the principall outward signe in this sacrament but thinke the giuing of a chalice with wine and the couer of it with bread to be more essentiall and effectuall but also we see that there is no commaundement giuen to the Apostles for it and therefore neither doe they commaund it to be vsed as a thing so necessarie that it may not be omitted And whereas we acknowledge this ceremonie to haue sundrie vses first in respect of the church the partie ordained is by that ceremonie notified vnto the church secondly he is confirmed thereby in his calling put in minde of his dutie and assured of his vocation by this common approbation that hereby the church sheweth Thirdly thereby the church doeth testifie as it were before God their sincere dealing in their election and consecrate him to the seruice of God Lastly the Godly vsed manie times in praying for others to lay their hands vpon them Bellarmine in the place aboue named bestoweth some paines to proue that praier and laying on of hands are two distinct things which is not denied To be short the summe of his argument is this it was vsed of the Apostles therefore it is so necessarie that it cannot be omitted We answer that that ceremonie had good vses but yet might be omitted Because our sauiour Christ did neither vse it nor commaund it And to thinke that he omitted anie substantial point of religion or that the Apostles would account as simply necessary any thing not vsed or prescribed by Christ is to absurd And whereas they proue the promise of iustifying grace to be made by Christ vnto them that receyue this their sacrament of Orders I wonder that they see not how that both many are iustified that neuer entered into their Orders many also that haue had and haue their greasing and scraping are as wicked men and so by likelihood as far from this iustifying grace as Turkes or Iewes And so it easily appeareth that this second thing required in a sacrament namely that it should seale in vs the promise of iustification hath not so much as anie likelihoode to bee in this their sacrament of Orders The third thing necessarie in a sacrament is Gods commaundement wherin they confesse their want and that they haue no commaundement But yet because God did giue grace with laying on of the Apostles handes 1 Tim. 4. Bellar. de ord sacra li. 1. ca. 2. therefore they take it as commaunded of God If this bee a good argumente God gaue g od successe to it therefore it is commaunded of God many strange partes in Sampson Iehu and others will prooue to be commaunded of God but that is most false as the Papists themselues will confesse God did not onely prosper Phinehas Numb 25 in that which he attempted against Zimrie and Cosby but commended the fact also and graciously rewarded the same but yet he had no commaundement for so doing Therefore although God may bee saide in some sort to like of that to which he giueth good successe yet no man can thereby conclude that God hath commaunded it But rather on the contrary we may thus reason The laying on of hands was neither practised by our sauiour Christ neither commaunded by him or his Apostles therefore that ceremonie is not of such necessitie but that ordination may bee without it Yea but Christ is not tyed to the sacrament sayth master Bellarmine and therefore can giue the effect of the sacrament without the sacrament Cap. 2. li. 1. hee can make Priestes without laying on of handes That hee can so doe wee confesse but that hee dealeth so in the institution of sacraments all the Papists in the worlde will neuer bee able to proue for in them we see that all things are most plaine the outward signe the promise the commaundement nothing in them hidden nothing doubtfull But because himselfe dare not well rest vpon that answere hee concludeth that seconde chapter with another aunswere for hee telleth vs that it may bee that Christ did lay his hands vpon them whom he made ministers Is this good dealing Doeth not this manifestly bewray the weakenesse of their cause when such friuolous coniectures are the chiefe strength of their cause As for the Fathers whatsoeuer out of them they doe alledge cannot prooue that which they take in hande namely that the sacrament of Orders is a sacrament like to Baptisme and the Eucharist For all men must confesse that these two sacraments which wee acknowledge to be common to all Christians are farre vnlike in that point to that popish sacrament which belongeth but vnto a fewe And euen in this consisteth especially the true vse of Baptisme and of the Eucharist that they should be genenerall testifications vnto the whole church of Gods graces and seales of his promises and pledges of his loue and fauour And therefore the fathers sometime call Ordination a sacrament yet it followeth not that they take it to bee a sacrament in the proper sense but in that sense onely as they call manie other things Sacraments which the Popish Church doeth not receyue as Sacraments De Sacrat ord li 1. ca â— But say they the Fathers compare Ordination with Baptisme For Bellarmine maketh great reckoning of that argument The fathers may be so in some respect because the sacrament of Baptisme cannot be reiterated no more must he that is once ordained to the ministerie seeke to be ordayned againe for euerie action that he performeth in his ministerie but hee is once for all appointed thereto But what is that to the nature of the sacrament which must by a visible signe assure vs of inuisible graces So that athough Ordination be like to Baptisme after a sort yet is it not like to Baptisme in that it by a visible signe doeth assure vs of inuisible graces but onely because it is not to bee reiterated no more than Baptisme is And thus wee see the weakenesse of this argument Ordination is in some poynt like to Baptisme therefore it is a sacrament in such sort as Baptisme is Thus then I trust it appeareth howe weakely they proue Ordination to be a sacrament who haue neither scriptures Matt. 28.19 nor fathers for the same But if they could prooue that Ordination which Christ vsed to bee a sacrament what is that to Popish Ordination Christ sent the Apostles to preach Goe teach all nations but by their ordination the popish priests Receiue power to offer a sacrifice The Apostles executed their commission which Christ gaue them as appeareth in the Acts and their Epistles And the popish priests on
is there any that doeth restraine this word Bodie vnto that part of man that is a distinct part from the soule amongst all the auncient Writers that I haue seene And then Maister Bellarmines argument hath no force because Saint Paules wordes may haue this sence Let not sinne raigne either in your body or soule and that sinne may be in the soule sinne I say properly so called I trust Master Bellarmine will not deny But the words themselues do most plainely shew that he speaketh in this place of that part of man wherein sinne properly so called may be for he speaketh of that part of man wherin raigning sinne may be otherwise his exhortation were needlesse but raigning sinne is sinne properly so called as all doe confesse therefore sinne properly so called may be in this mortall body whereof heere the Apostle saint Paul speaketh And therefore Master Bellarmine triumpheth too hastily when as he concludeth that Saint Paul plainely signifieth hee calleth concupiscence sinne but not properly but vnproperly But I may more iustly conclude against Master Bellarmine The Apostle speaketh there of sinne properly so called And he speake h of concupiscence therefore concupiscence is sin properly so called The minor is confessed here by master Bellarmine in that he doth alleage it to proue his purpose of concupiscence The maior also is proued out of master Bellarmine For the principall thing that he doth alleadge to teach vs that Concupiscence is no sinne that it is not in that same part wherein sinne can bee but in the flesh onely where can be no sinne But if it bee founde once to bee in that part of man wherein sinne may bee hee will not then denie but is also sinne Therfore thus I reason the apostle speaketh there of that sinne that is in that part of the body De amiss grat l. 5. c. 13 wherein sinne is that is properly so called as before I haue proued therfore he speaketh of sinne properly so called The other place alledged by master Bellarmine to proue that saint Paule calleth not concupiscence sinne in the proper signification Rom. 7.18 is this There dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh anie good Therefore concupiscence is in the flesh How vnnecessarie a consequence this argument hath the verie children may perceiue And also this word flesh euerie one that is acquainted but with the principles of diuinitie knoweth to be spoken of whatsoeuer is not regenerate in man euen the verie mind of man But of this I haue spoken sufficiently in the answer to the former place Master Bellarmine also vseth some other reasons to proue that the apostles calleth concupiscence sinne vnproperly but they are not worth speaking of As this is one Sinne is manie times called vnproperly therefore here it is not called sinne properly A kinde of reasoning which maister Bellarmine immediately afterwardes reproueth in Luther and yet himselfe vseth it Another reason whereby I proue concupiscence to be sinne in the proper signification Rom. 7.23 De Amiss gratiae li. 5. cap. 6. is because It rebelleth against the lawe of the minde For master Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that to be vnderstoode of concupiscence As also by The law of the minde Ibid. cap. 10 he vnderstandeth The rule of a good action which must needes be the law of God Thus therefore I reason whatsoeuer affection or lust rebelleth against the law of the minde is in truth sinne but concupiscence is lust that rebelleth against the law of the minde therefore concupiscence is in truth sinne The maior may be proued out of saint Iohn 1. Iohn 3.4 who defineth sin to be a Breach of law or lawlesnesse But yet master Bellarmine wil not confesse that whatsoeuer rebelleth against the law is sinne properly and namely concupiscence De Amiss grat li. 5. cap 14. because it rebelleth onely as a thing stirring vp and causing to transgresse as I said of the diuell saith he I am glad that concupiscence which the papists will in no wise to be sinne of it selfe hath deserued no better of her owne friends and patrons then to be matched in the same yoke with the diuell who is a lyar and the father thereof Iohn 8.44 But maister Bellarmine cannot shift off this argument vnder this coulour Wee inquire what concupiscence is he telleth vs what it worketh wee would knowe the nature of it he telleth vs the effect of it There are therefore in concupiscence two things to be considered the one is what it bringeth foorth in vs of the which we say with saint Iames Iam. 1.15 When lust hath conceyued it bringeth forth sin The other what it is in it selfe or in it own nature To that we answere out of the apostle in many places that it is sin as before it hath bin shewed yea and in this very respect that it hath in it a repugnancy against the law of the minde and followeth not the direction of the law of God For euen as it is crooked that is not euen to the straite rule so is it sinne that is not agreeable to the most infallible rule of Gods law which I take to be master Bellarmines meaning expounding the nature of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saint Iohn vseth De Amiss grat li. 5. cap. 14 1. 1. Iohn 3.4 he saith It is a departing from the law If then concupiscence be examined euen before it bee consented vnto by Gods Lawe doe wee not finde that it is a motion disagreeing from Gods Lawe No man can denie it For looke vpon the lust that mooueth to vncleannesse to stealth to crueltie although the heart consent not yet in that verie lust is that that disagreeth from Gods Lawe So that this is not true that maister Bellarmine saith that concupiscence rebelleth against the lawe onelie as it stirreth vp or causeth to sinne seeing in it selfe it hath that nature that swarueth from the law S. August also proueth my maior in that definition that he giueth of sinne Cont. Faust li. 22. cap. 27. saying that Sinne is that which is said done or lusted against the eternall law And that that is a definition of sinne properly so called maister Bellarmine cannot denie Nowe for my minor proposition which is this That concupiscence rebelleth against the lawe of the minde maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it in plaine wordes De Amiss gratiae lib. 5 cap. 10. 14 but yet so as that he seemeth to mee to counterfeit Iuglers when they would play a tricke of leger-demaine For their greatest skill is Deceptio visus the deceiuing of our sight whereby they seeme to do that they doe not or with a little cleanly conueyance to beguile the simple For although he confesse that these lusts rebell against the lawe De Amiss gratiae li. 5. cap. 10. yet saith he they rebell against the law as it sheweth the ende not as it commaundeth the meanes But who can imagine that euer saint Paule
his purpose speaking of iustification by faith Arg. 9 His ninth argument consisteth of two places of scripture ca. 22 The first is out of that talke which God had with Caine before he killed his brother Abel Gen. 4.7 Also vnto thee his desire shall bee subiect and thou shalt rule ouer him But that this may be an argument for freewill master Bellarmine and others contend that it should be read The desire of it shal be subiect vnto thee and thou shalt beare rule ouer it And so they prooue that sinne shall be subiect vnto Cain and he shall beare rule ouer it Therefore he had free will That manie of the fathers doe expound these words so it cannot be denied But not what they say is only to be regarded but how they proue it yea the Iesuites that wrote In dialog 2 the censure of Colen will be therein my warrant for they hauing condenmed some of the auncient fathers to haue spoken hardly because they accounted the workes of infidels how good soeuer they seemed to be but sinne doe then fall to trie how their proofe will warrant their doctrine So must I heere examine vpon what ground the fathers doe thus expound it And this I need not feare to do For themselues giue me leaue to examine that they say If then saint Hillarie haue giuen vs a true rule to interprete the scripture when he sayeth Lib. 9. de trinit The vnderstanding of that which is spoken must be looked for of the wordes that go before or of those that followe Let vs see what interpretation is to bee gathered out of the circumstances of that place that wee may with the Church receiue the fathers but not with the fathers forsake the faith of the Church In Commonitor contra haeres as Vincentius Lirinensis warneth vs. First then euen in respect of the verie Grammer if the relatiue in both places must agree with the antecedent then this worde It which is the relatiue in both places as they would haue it or rather his or him as we say being of the Masculine Gender which themselues cannot denie the worde Sinne which is of the Feminine Gender cannot bee the antecedent to those Relatiues although it goe next them which maister Bellarmine vnlearnedly affirmeth And therefore that translation and interpretation of the place standeth not with the rules of Grammer Secondly the circumstances of the place teach vs so much Cain is angrie that his brothers sacrifice is accepted of and his not Therefore when God hath questioned with Cain of his anger hee bringeth this as an argument to pacifie him because that Cain being the elder brother should still haue the prerogatiue of the elder brother and Abell should bee subiect vnto him And that this is the plaine and natural sense of the wordes I proue by sundrie reasons First because in the former Chapter God speaking of the subiection of Eue vnto Adam as they cannot but confesse Cap. 3.16 vseth the selfe same wordes there that are here vsed And therefore by all likelihoode hee speaketh of the same matter also here that there he did howe Abell should be vnder his elder brother Conferre the wordes together you shall see them agree Secondly how impertinenly had the promise of free will beene made in that place vnto Cain God hauing reiected his sacrifice and knowing his furie towards his brother yea not any one circumstance inducing thereunto But thirdly their owne doctrine doeth strongly confute them For if they that are not regenerate as Cain haue the power of their will by their owne confession weakened and so clogged that they cannot haue free wil to doe good then this cannot be verified of sinne howe could God say that the lust or desire of sinne should be vnder him or that he should haue dominion ouer sinne being a gracelesse and cruel man Yea the euent did presently declare that hee was subiect to sinne and that sinne got the dominion ouer him So that I cannot see how they can be excused from seeking to make God a liar that affirme that God there promised that Cain should subdue sinne the euent being so plain contrary Which because I know it to be farre from those godly fathers I will rather thinke that they did but allude vnto that place then expound the words And thus I trust it is plaine that neither the rules of Grammer nor the circumstances of the place neither yet their owne doctrine of free will can well stand with that interpretation that they doe bring As for his second authoritie which is out of Ecclesiasticus the booke it selfe not being canonical Eccle. 15.14 15 16. a necessarie argument cannot bee gathered out of the same And that man at the first had free will it can not bee denied and of that especially the place mentioned doeth intreat De grat liber arbit lib. 5. cap. 23 Now certaine other arguments out of the scripture there are alledged whereunto I will briefly make answer The first out of Deuteronomie where Moses hauing shewed them how he hath deliuered to them Gods word in obeying whereof is life Deut. 30 19. and in contempt of it death hee then addeth Therefore choose life that thou and thy seede may liue Wherin Moses doth nothing else but earnestly stirre vp the people to endeuour to the vttermost of their power to serue God Not shewing what they can effectually applie themselues vnto by the power of their will but what they should doe in respect of their duetie towardes God or care of their owne good As for that of Iosue Iosue 24.15 Choose you this day whom you will serue When Iosue who had good experience of the frailtie of the people and their readinesse to serue other gods had set before them the great mercies of God in their mightie deliuerance and preseruation from many perils the more strongly to tie them vnto God hee putteth them to this choise not because he would haue suffered them to haue worshipped strange gods if themselues would for that had beene contrarie to the dutie that God required of him being a magistrate but to this ende that themselues hauing made choise to serue God might by this their owne voluntarie submitting themselues to God bee vrged to serue him more sincerely as by the 22. verse appeareth And this choise also is rather what external profession they would be of which is a matter in our owne power rather then of the inwarde affection which is the thing in controuersie betweene the Papists and vs. For this we denie and they should proue that wee are able by our free will to doe things that are truely good and to eschewe the things that are euill And that this choyse that they were put to was what externall profession they would be of the wordes themselues declare Choose sayeth hee whether ye will serue the Gods which your fathers serued or the gods of the Amorites I and my house
wordes must not be taken that teacheth transubstantiation Thirdly the circumstances of the place it selfe are flat against this doctrine of transubstantiation For if any thing els had bin signified by the worde This then that which Christ tooke and brake that is the bread it could not but verie much haue astonished them that were present that speaking as it were of the bread hee should haue meant any thing else But to haue taught that it had beene his very naturall bodie indeede it would haue made them much more wonder than they did â—â—â— e sixt of Saint Iohns Gospel when they sayd Ioh. 6 6â— This is a hard saying who can heare it For if they could not abide to heare our Sauiour Christ say they must eate his flesh and drinke his blood howe much lesse woulde they not onely haue heard this saide againe but also seeing him sit at the Table and hauing taken bread into his hand to pronounce that that bread was his naturall bodie that was borne of the Virgine Marie and that they must so eate him But they knew that about Sacraments sacramentall speaches are to be vsed And neuer imagined that because he said This is my body therefore that bread should bee chaunged in substaunce to the bodie of Christ no more than there should be an alteration in Christ because he sayth I am the doore I am the vine yea no more than the cup it selfe was changed in the words of consecration into another thing They knew that it is not such a kinde of speach as is vsed when God is purposed to make any thing Gen. 1. Let there be light let there be a firmament It is not a speach of coÌ„manding but of shewing or declaring when he sayth This is my body And therefore they made no such doubts they did not so much as aske any question how it could bee that he whose bodie they saw sitting with them at the table could haue also an other bodie though inuisible yet a verie true and naturall bodie hidden in those formes of bread And as the Apostles did neuer imagine so grosly of Christ and so absurdly that he had two bodies the one visible the other inuisible the one sitting at the table the other lurking in the formes of bread but did eate that which Christ tooke brake and gaue to them that is to say bread so Saint Paule doeth flatly call it bread 1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14. yea and that after the words of consecration And although Bellarmine would seeme to answere this argument and indeed iustly cyteth the answere which is commonly made to it that it is called bread not because it is so nowe but because it was so for sayeth hee it is not needfull that if sometime that be vsed yet that should bee vsed alwayes yet neither will the answere that hee best liketh of serue the turne For sayeth hee it is called bread according to the Hebrew phrase which calleth all meate by the name of bread Now to strike him with his owne weapon if it bee so sometimes must it so signifie alwayes I am sure maister Bellarmine will not so say for then shall wee doubt what it was that our Sauiour Christ tooke for the institution of the Sacrament And if he dare not say that so it must bee alwayes then must hee giue better reason why heere it should not bee so or else wee cannot beleeue him Especially seeing the Apostle immediately before speaking of the institution of the Sacrament hath shewed howe our Sauiour Christ tooke bread which I trust maister Bellarmine will there confesse to bee bread in deed and not other foode why should hee then without proofe or reason say here it is more generally taken to applie it perchaunce to the foode of the soule Yea this replie may serue for all the answeres that hee hath to this argument because it is not inough for him to say such a worde may so bee taken sometime but hee must prooue that it must in this place so be taken Moreouer if you consider of that which they call the forme of bread it is no other in colour taste or fashion than it was it putrifieth and corrupteth as soone as when it is not consecrated Which to affirme if it were transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ were in my mind absurd and blasphemous Lastly we see by the practise that the godly haue sometime vsed that the fathers in the primitiue Church thought not the bread to be transubstantiated For if they had knowne of any transubstantiation they woulde not haue burned that which remained of the Eucharist as Hesichius Hesich in leuit Ori. in Leuit. and also Origen vpon Leuiticus shew that they did Thus then by many reasons I trust it sufficiently appeareth that the church of Rome cannot without great violence done to the place wring traÌ„substantiation out of these words this is my body In Ioh. tract 47. for Christ is many things by similitude which he is not in deed a rocke a doore c. as saith S. August And so we may see the words to be most easie and plaine if according to the maner of such sacramentall speaches we vnderstand the worde Is. 1. Cor. 10.2 The rocke was Christ that is it was a figure of Christ so here This is my body that is the figure of my bodie Cont. Adimant c. 12. as S August most plainly expouÌ„deth in this place saying The lord made no doubt to say this is my body when he gaue the figure of his bodie And thus much to take froÌ„ them that one weapon which they haue wrested froÌ„ the scriptures to fight against vs wtal Now the which they can bring against vs out of the writings of men can haue no such force and therfore is not so dangerous Answer to the places out of the fathers for transubstantiation Inst Apol. 2 neer the end And yet it will not be amisse to take a short viewe of that which they alledge out of the Fathers of the purer ages namely that liued fiue hundred or sixe hundred yeares after Christ Iustinus Martyr is the first whom he nameth out of whom he gathereth That the meate whereof our flesh is nourished that is the bread sanctified by the prayer of the worde of God is the bodie of the Lorde Wherein I note first that because hee speaketh of meate wherof our flesh is nourished he acknowledgeth no change of the substance of the bread for it must be the substance of the bread that nourisheth our bodies no change I say but Sacramentall in regard whereof he hath said a little before that we receiue it not as common bread because that being so sanctified it is a Sacrament of the bodie of our sauior Christ TheÌ„ the substance of the bread being proued euen by these words to remaine it is nothing hard to see what he meaneth when he sayth it is the bodie of the Lord. For it