the Christian Church to wit the Bishop of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem and amongst these they yeeld a primacy of order and dignity to the Bishop of Rome So that in all Councels and meetings hee is to haue the first place in sitting or giving voyce in subscribing or defining and determining things concerning the faith and state of the Church but not any power or commaunding authority over them Wee sayth Marcus Ephesinus thinke the Pope to bee one of the fiue Patriarches if hee bee Orthodoxe But they that mette in the Florentine Councell and subscribed to the vnion there made do teach that hee is the Vicar of Christ the father and teacher of all Christians Secondly in the ministring of baptisme they differ much from the Roman Church For first the words of forme with them are let the servant of the Lord be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost and not I baptize thee as in the Latine Church 2ly they dippe the baptized thrice in the water whereas many among the Latines doe onely powre water vpon the top of the head 3ly they vse not salt spittle and the like as the Latinos doe 4l l they anoynt them with chrisom or holy oyle in the forehead so as in the Latine Church they are anoynted in confirmation And in some other parts also saying sigillum obsignatio donispiritus sancti that is the seale and obsignation of the gift of the holy Ghost and vse no other confirmation Whereas the Latines make it a sacrament to bee ministred by none but a Bishop 5ly According to the old custome vsed in the Primitiue Church they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptize them 3ly They differ much more from the Latines touching the sacrament of the eucharist For first they vse leavened bread and some of them proceede so farre as that they thinke it no sacrament if it bee ministred in vnleavened bread 2ly They consecrate one loafe which they devide into many parts and giue to the communicants 3ly They keepe the bread and wine covered vntill they come to blesse and then drawing aside the curtaine they bring them into sight and lift them vp from the mysticall table that the people may see what heavenly foode is prepared for them And to this purpose with them serveth the elevation 4ly They thinke the consecration is made by the prayers and blessing and that the reciting of the words of Christ this is my body c. serveth onely to put vs in minde what was then done when he first instituted this Sacrament and to giue a power or aptnesse to the sacramentall elements to be chaunged mystically into his body and blood whereas the Latines thinke the bare recitall of the words of Christ doe worke the consecration 5ly They pronounce the words of Christ aloud that all may heare and vnderstand the Latines so that they are not heard 6ly They giue the sacrament to the hands of the communicants the Latines put it in their mouthes 7ly They condemne private masses as appeareth by Marcus Ephesinus who sayth the Priest in the Latine Church eateth all and drinketh all himselfe giving no part to any that are present no not to the Deacon that assisteth him and yet cryeth aloud take and eate So doe they many things sayth he in the celebration of this holy mystery contrary to the tradition receiued from the fathers contrary to the words of Christ and contrary to themselues and their owne words 8ly They minister the communion in both kinds to all communicants and thinke it necessary so to doe the Latines minister it onely in one kinde to the lay people and such Priests and cleargie men as consecrate not but are present onely to communicate 9ly They teach that there is a cōversion of the bread wine into the body blood of Christ. But such as that is whereby the iron is turned into fire or rather into a fiery nature being whence it becōmeth burning iron In which there is no abolishing of the substance but such a change that it is no longer meerely iron but the nature and properties of fire appeare in it rather then of iron So that as iron is turned into fire not by an absolute ceasing to be or loosing of former properties but by a suspension of them for a time so that they appeare not and by becomming one in such sort with the fire that it hath all the properties and actiōs of it so the bread is turned into the body of Christ not by an absolute ceasing to bee but by becomming one in such sort with Christs body thorough the presence of the spirit descending and comming downe vpon it as that the communicating in the one is the partaking in the other and an imparting of all such graces as may or doe flow from any vnion with the same The bread and wine sayth Damascen are so chaunged into the body blood of Christ by the presence of the spirit descending and comming downe vpon them as that they are no longer two but one and the same thing And as the coale is no longer meere wood or iron but so vnited to the fire that it is become one with it so the bread wherein wee communicate is no longer meere bread but vnited vnto the deity Hee doth not say the bread ceaseth to bee or is abolished but that it ceaseth to be that it was meere bread What kind of conversion this is we may learne out of Cyrill Vosvncti estis sayth he vnguento facti participes consortes Christi caeterum vide ne illud putes vnguentum tantum Quemadmodum enim panis eucharistiae post sancti spiritus invocationem non amplius est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed corpus Christi sic sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum post invocationem neque siquis it a malit appellare commune sed donum Christi Heere wee see hee maketh the consecrated and holy oyntment to bee the gift of Christ as the bread is the body of Christ and so to cease to be meere oyle or oyntment as the bread which wee breake ceaseth to bee meere bread whereas yet no man imagineth any such transubstantiation of the oyle or holy oyntment as to abolish the nature and substance of it But that the Greckes neuer dreamed of any such conversion of the bread and wine as should vtterly abolish the former substance it is evident by Theodoret in his dialogues For whereas the Eutichian hereticke objects that as the outward signes in the Sacrament of the eucharist are chaunged after they are consecrated so the body of Christ after it was assumed was changed into the divine substance The Orthodoxe and right beleeuer answereth that he is taken in that snare which he layd for others For the mysticall signes doe not chaunge their nature after consecration but remaine and continue in the same
and grace thorough the same Lord IESVS CHRIST This forme of prayer wee finde to haue beene verie auncient but what the meaning of it is it is not soe easie to finde out For how may wee bee vnderstood to desire that the body of CHRIST which we represent vnto GOD in this commemoratiue sacrifice should bee carried into heauen seeing it is alwaies there Wherefore let vs heare what the holy Fathers haue sayd to this purpose Quis fidelium haberet dubium sayth Saint Gregorie in ipsâ immolationis hora ad vocem sacerdotis coelos aperiri in illo Iesu Cristi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse summis in a sociari terrena coelestibus iungi vnum quid ex visibilibus invisibilibus fieri That is What faithfull man or beleeuer will euer make any doubt but that in the houre of the oblation the Heauens are opened that so soone as the voyce of the Priest is heard Quires of Angels are present the lowest and highest things enter into a societie earthly things are joyned with those that are celestiall and things visible and invisible become one And in another place At one and the same time and moment that which is presented on the altar is caught vp into Heauen by the ministerie of Angels to bee ioyned in a neere sort vnto the body of Christ and is at the same time before the eyes of the Priest vpon the altar So then the oblations which we present vnto God on the Altar are then carried by the hands of Angels into Heauen when those sacramentall elements which we bring thither though they be still visible on the altar as Gregory saith yet being changed and become vnto vs in mysterie and exhibitiue signification the body and bloud of Christ once sacrificed and shed for vs and now in heauen continually represented vnto God to intercede for vs may rightly be said to bee carried vp into heauen But seeing by the precedent wordes of mysticall blessing and prayer the sacramentall Elements are so chaunged before the pronouncing of this prayer that they are already become in sort before expressed the body and bloud of Christ which is in heauen wee doe not in these wordes desire any such thing to bee done but this is that wee say Lord wee heere commemorate the death and sacrifice of thy Sonne Christ that once died for vs and now continually representeth the same his death vnto thee to procure vs good humbly beseeching thee that for his sake thus dying for vs now continually in heauen representing himselfe vnto thee setting the same his passions and sufferings before the eyes of thy Diuine Maiesty as if euen now he did hang on the Crosse all euill may bee farre remoued from vs all good brought vpon vs. And that all we that by communicating in these holy mysteries receiue the body bloud of the same thy Son Christ may be filled with all heauenly benediction and grace So that to commaund the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud once offered here by vs commemorated to be carried into heauen and to bee represented vnto God is no more but to make it appeare that that body of Christ which hee once offered by the passion of death and which we now commemorate is in Heauen there so represented vnto God that it procureth for vs all that wee desire There is nothing therefore found in the Canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood that maketh any thing for the new reall offering of Christ to God his Father as a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes neither did the Church of God at before Luthers time know or beleeue any such thing though there were some in the midst of her that so conceiued of this mystery as the Romanists now do Wherfore for the clearing of this point I will first set down what the conceipt of the Romanists now is then make it appeare that all the best learned at and before Luthers time thought otherwise touching this matter then these now doe These that now are expresse their conceipt touching this point in this sort First they shew what an oblation is Secondly what the nature of a sacrifice is And thirdly how and in what sort they imagine Christ is now newly really not offered onely but sacrificed also to take away our sinnes An oblation they rightly define to bee the bringing of some thing that we haue into the place where the name of God is called on and where his honour dwelleth a representing of it there vnto God a professing that wee will owne it no longer but that God shall bee the owner of it that it shall bee holy vnto him to bee imployed about his seruice if it bee an irrationall thing or to serue him in some speciall sort if it bee rationall as when parents presented and offered their children to God to bee holy vnto him as were the Nazarits who were to serue him in some peculiar and speciall sort and in this sort Christ presented and gaue himselfe to God his father from his first entrance into this world and was holy vnto him and an oblation But in this sort it is not for vs to offer Christ to God his father whatsoeuer any Papist may imagine For it were a wofull thing for vs so to giue vp Christ to his father as to professe that wee will owne him no longer nor haue any interest in him nor claime to him any more And besides if it were fit for vs so to doe yet who are wee that wee should present Christ vnto God his father to bee holy vnto him that so presented and gaue himselfe vnto him from his first entrance into the world that hee bringeth vs also to God to bee holy vnto him A sacrifice implyeth more than an oblation For if wee will sacrifice a thing vnto God wee must not onely present it vnto him professing that it shall bee his and that wee will owne it no more nor make any claime vnto it but wee must destroy and consume it also As wee see in the old law when liuing things were sacrificed they were slaine and consumed in fire when other that had no life were sacrificed they were consumed in fire And answerably herevnto Christ was sacrificed on the crosse when hee was crucified and cruelly put to death by the Iewes But how he should now bee really sacrificed sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed it is very hard to conceiue First therefore they say that Christ may truely bee said to bee really sacrificed because when the words of consecration are pronounced ouer the bread they so cause the body of Christ to bee where the bread was that they cause not the presence of the blood and in like sort the words pronounced ouer the wine cause the presence of Christs blood and not of his body so that vpon the pronouncing of the words of consecration there would bee in the sacrament the body of Christ without the
substance figure and shape and are visible and may be handled as before but they are conceiued and beleeued to be that which now they are made and are adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee Heere wee see is no such change of the mysticall signes as to abolish their substance and former being for then the conversion in the Sacrament had beene such as the Hereticke imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed and so Theodoret could not truely haue sayd hee was taken in the snare which he layd for others Wherefore to conclude this poynt the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramētall elements but of that kinde which I haue before shewed that abolisheth not the things which were but maketh them to bee that they were not Which may farther appeare in that they say likewise there is a chaunge of the communicants into the being of Christ and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transubstantiation into Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the making of them that communicate partakers of the diuine nature according to that of the Apostle who saith Wee are made the body of Christ and yet is not our former being abolished but wee are made to bee that which wee were not in a divine and supernaturall sorte according to that of Damascen Let vs come and receiue the body of him that was crucified let vs partake of that divine burning coale that the fire of desire being kindled in vs by that coale may burne vp our sinnes and lighten our hearts and that being changed into that devine fire wee may become fire and bee in a sort deified and made partakers of the divine nature All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances For as Cyprian sayth well nostra ipsius contunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confaederat voluntates That is the vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and vs neither causeth any mixture of the persons nor maketh them to be substantially the same but joyneth affections and confederateth the wills Lastly touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood they teach that it is a sacrifice and that wee may the better conceiue what they meane they lay downe these propositions First that vnder the Law two sorts of things were presented vnto God gifts and sacrifices Giftes as vessels of gold or silver and things of like nature which were dedicated vnto God and set apart from prophane and ordinary vses Sacrifices as sheepe oxen and the like things when they were slaine and their blood powred out and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire The second proposition is that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world as the first fruites of our nature as the first borne of Mary his mother and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified The third that bread and wine are presented vnto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated The fourth that the bread and wine are consecrated and so chaunged as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth that it may be truely sayd that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist but a sacrifice also in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there The sixt that the bread cannot be sayd to be sacrificed for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excell those of the old The seaventh that in the sacrificing of a liuing thing the killing of it is implied The eight that the body of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee sacrificed in the eucharist because hee can die no more but is immortall and impassible The ninth that Christ may be sayd to be newly sacrificed and slaine commemoratiuely in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the crosse is there commemorated liuely expressed and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries according to that of Lyra Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio sed vnius sacrificij in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem That is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered the answere is cleare and easie that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar but whereas Christ once offered himselfe as a sacrifice on the crosse the same is daily commemorated according to that Luk. 22 Doe this in remembrance of mee And therefore Chrysostome writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes hauing named it a sacrifice addeth by way of explication or correction that it is a sacrifice or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice So that heerein they differ from the Romanists who teach that there is a new reall sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they doe not so clearely expresse themselues as S. Augustine others that follow him For they teach that we must first will the things that are right and good and that God then helpeth confirmeth and setteth vs forward so that they suppose hee followeth our wils and goeth not before them least the liberty thereof might be prejudiced Their meaning I thinke is that no good can be wrought in vs without our consent which S. Augustine also confesseth to bee true but it is Gods grace that winneth inclineth and boweth vs to consent to that good which it selfe suggesteth in which respect it may be truely sayd to goe before our will and yet not to prejudice our liberty If they speake not so distinctly touching this poynt as some others doe it is not to be marvailed at seeing the Greeke fathers are not so cleare in this point as the Latines are Wherevpon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words I haue thought good to admonish thee that if in this whole worke thou shalt any where finde any such sayings of Chrysostome as that when man endeavoureth and doth that which pertayneth to him God will abundantly giue grace thou wisely and warily reade that holy Doctour least thou fall into any such errour as to beleeue that Gods grace is given for our merits For if out of merit it is not grace But farre be it from vs so to thinke seeing wee cannot so much as endeavour or doe any thing that pertayneth to vs without Gods grace preventing vs. According to that in the Psalme His mercie shall prevent mee and againe his mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life And that of holy Church Let thy grace O Lord wee beseech thee prevent and follow vs. Sixtly touching Iustification they lay downe these propositions The first that wee
their own ascension and going vp into heauen For though vvhen one substance is turned into another not being before the conuersion but by the conuersion beginning to bee that into vvhich the conuersion is made occupieth and possesseth the place the other held as vvhen Lots wife was conuerted into a pillar of salt the pillar stood in that place where she vvas vvhen shee vvas conuerted yet if one substance should bee changed into another preexistent the conuerted should get the place of that into vvhich it vvere conuerted so that the bread and vvine on the mysticall table being conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of God should goe vp into heauen and not bring him to the table And yet this vvas the principall reason that moued the authours of Transubstantiation to like better of that than of any other construction of Christs vvords For that they supposed thereby the body of Christ might be made present in the Sacrament without any change of place or locall motion in respect of it selfe Which yet Scotus Occam and the latter Schoolemen doe vtterly reiect So sweetely do these men agree that talke so much of vnity Verily I am perswaded there are more materiall and reall differences amongst them touching this one sacrament then there are appearing differences or controuersies amongst those of our religion touching all points of Religion For is it not so that there are foure opinions touching the presence of Christ in the sacrament and three of them different from Transubstantiation So that notwithstāding the decree of the Laterane Councell many of the wisest and best learned were of opinion that Transubstantiation cannot be deduced from the scripture or the Churches determination Did. not Thomas Aquinas and the rest of that time deny that one body may be locally in more places than one at one time and reiect it as a thing impossible and implying contradiction and doe not the Papistes at this day iudge vs haereticks for being of the same opinion Did they not in Berengarius time thinke that the very body of Christ is torne with teeth and yet without hurt by a strange miracle And was not Berengarius in his recantation forced to say so much yet at this day this conceipt is holden most absurd and foolish Do not some of them say that the body of Christ goeth downe into the stomacke and belly and is eaten of mice and dogges and do not others detest this blasphemous impiety Do not some of them say there are accidents in the Sacraments without substance and do not others affirme that those accidents are inherent in the aire Do not some of them say that when the Priest breaketh that which he holdeth in his hands after consecration it is no true breaking but a deceiuing of the sense Others that hee truely breaketh and yet nothing is broken Others that Christs body is broken and others that the accidents are broken Such a broken religion haue these men deuised that neither the Fathers nor any before Barbarisme had possessed all euer thought of Do not some of them say that Christ in the Sacrament retaineth his owne proportion of parts figure and fashion and do not others say and demonstratiuely proue that if he be in the Sacrament hee hath no distance of parts no figure no fashion nor organicall disposition of body and consequently no life The rest of the infinite mazes that these men turning out of the direct way haue lost themselues in I haue no pleasure to treade out But those fewe examples may suffice to shewe that their whole doctrine is full of vncertainty contrariety and contradiction and doth testifie against it selfe that it is not of God It were easie to shewe that all Popish doctrine is nothing else but a masse of vncertainties and contradictions shewing that they are out of the way that pro◅esse it and know not how to finde either it or themselues If any Papist dare deny this it shall bee proued against him in particulars But they will say notwithstanding all these differences yet they submitte their iudgements to the censure of the Pope and Councell and therefore their diuisions are not daungerous nor hereticall How false and shamelesse this answere is the infinite number of them that haue euer iudged that the Pope may erre and become an Hereticke doth apparantly demonstrate If they shall say that though they dare not relye vpon the infallibility of the popes iudgement yet they rest in the determination of generall Councelles it will bee found that they are as doubtfull touching the authority of Councelles as they are concerning the Pope some saying they are meere humane inuentions others that they are nothing if the Pope confirme them not others that they are though hee refuse to confirme them and others that both may erre some reiecting one Councell and some another as appeareth by the contrarie iudgment of Papists of the Councelles of Constance Basill Pisa and Florence But they will say they all hold that which the Catholike Romane Church doth hold and in other things not yet agreed vppon thinke euery man at his pleasure This is as much as if they should haue sayd that wherein soeuer they all agree they all agree and wherein soeuer they differ each faction doth differ from another and carefully prouideth that nothing shall passe against it by publike consent as appeareth in the matter of Maries conception sundry other things which no Councell durst euer determine for feare of offendinge the contrarie factions dissenting about these things Thus then I hope it appeareth out of that which hath beene spoken that by the note of vnity and diuision the Romanistes are found to bee in errour and not wee What degree of vnity is necessarily required in the true Churches of God and what divisions may be found among the societies of Christians and yet not cause them to cease to be the true Churches of God I haue sufficiently cleared in that part wherein I shewed what is the nature of schisme and heresie CHAP. 43 Of Vniuersalitie THe next note of the Church is vniuersality concerning which many things haue beene spoken in the former part touching the notes of the Church in generall Wherefore passing by those things let vs in this place obserue only these fewe things following First therefore to the Vniuersality of the Church it is required that it extend to all times places and sorts of men Secondly this Vniversality is not found in any one Church limited either in respect of time or place Thirdly from hence it followeth that it is no where found but in that blessed number of Christians that haue beene are and shall bee Fourthly it cannot bee a note of the true Church that is the multitude of men now liuing in the world as being found in it For that multitude is not vniuersall but limited in respect of time being onely the number of them that
not to affirme the same exceeding boldly vntruly of the time in which Luther first began which is yet within the memory of this present age Others affirme the Church to haue beene then invisible directly against that which M. D. Feild next before so boldly affirmed into which bold assertion hee ventured onely thereby to avoyd the other absurd paradoxe of the supposed Churches beeing invisible which so many learned Protestants haue also disclaymed heretofore as on the other part they who so affirmed their Churches then beeing invisible affirmed the same as enforced therevnto in regard of the knowne pregnant vntrueth of M. D. Feilds other assertion in affirming the Church to haue beene then knowne visible Vpon such dangerous rocks are our aduersaries driuen in their thus sayling betweene Scylla Charibdis Heere we see is much adoe as if some thing had beene written by me that were beyond all beliefe and a very wonderment But what strange thing is it that is thus wondered at Surely it is nothing else but that I haue affirmed that all those Christian Catholique Churches in the West part of the world where the Pope formerly tyranized and where our Fathers liued and dyed were the true Protestant Churches of God and that the maintayners of those errours superstitious abuses Papall tyranny which wee dislike were in that they maintayned the same and so farre forth as they maintayned any of them but a faction only in those Churches If this be all I doubt not but so to make good what I haue written that Mr Brerelie shall in the end wonder at himselfe why hee contradicted it For if by a Protestant Church we meane a Church beleeuing teaching in all poynts as Protestants doe and beleeuing teaching nothing but that they doe it shall bee proued demonstrated that the Latine or West Church wherein the Pope tyrannized before Luthers time was continued a true Protestant Church For the Church that then was beleeued taught all that wee doe and nothing else it condemned those prophane superstitious abuses which wee haue removed and groaned vnder that tyranny the yoake whereof we haue now cast off howsoever there were many in the midst of her that taught otherwise that brought in maintayned intollerable superstitious abuses sought to advance the Popes ouerruling greatnes and supremacy But if by a Protestant Church they vnderstand a Church that not only complayneth of Papall tyranny and vsurpation sheweth her dislike of the same but that hath cast off the yoake and that not onely disliketh abuses but removeth them that not only teacheth all necessary sauing trueth but suffereth none within the compasse of her jurisdiction to teach otherwise wee confesse that no part of the Westerne Church was in this sort a Protestant Church till a reformation was begun of evills formerly disliked But M Brerelie sayth Protestancie was not in being before Luthers time that therefore the Christian Catholique Churches wherein our Fathers liued dyed could not in any sort truely bee sayd to bee Protestant Churches Wherevnto our answere is that ifby Protestancie bee meant the beleeuing of all that and that onely which they that are now named Protestants doe beleeue the professing of a dislike of such abuses Papall vsurpations as they haue now cast off it was in beeing many ages and long before Luther was borne and all those Christian Catholique Churches wherein our Fathers liued died were Protestant Churches But this Master Brerelie thinketh vnaunswerablie to confute because the Masse where so many poynts of the Romish Religion are contayned was the publique liturgie solemnly celebrated in all Churches at before Luthers appearing and the externall face of religion was no other then the now professed Roman faith For aunswere wherevnto I will first shew that the vsing of the Masse as the publique liturgie is no good proofe of that Master Brerely vndertaketh to proue Secondly I will make it to appeare that the externall face of Religion before Luthers time was not as Master Brerelie would make vs to beleeue the Roman faith now professed Touching the Masse foure things are to be obserued The name The canon it selfe The sinister consecrations manifold abuses in practise besides and contrary to the words of the canon the intendment of them that first composed the same and lastly sundry apocryphall vaine superstitious idle things crept into the publique seruice of the Church Touching the first it is knowen that the celebration of the holy mysterie sacrament of the Lords body blood had the name of Masse from the dismissing of all non-communicants before the consecration began So that none stayed but such as were to communicate The auncient custome was sayth Cassander in his consultation that none might bee present at the consecration but such as were to communicate For as Chrysostome sheweth as they that were not baptized might not stay no more might they that were impure guilty of any grievous sinne so that they were not fitte to communicate And to this purpose was that most auncient obseruation of all Churches that by the voyce of the deacon missa seu missio denunciabatur catechumenis non communicantibus ante consecrationem that is that the Catechumens all non-communicants were dismissed before the consecration the deacon crying out with a loud voyce si quis non communicet exeat si quis non communicet det locum if any communicate not let him depart So that hence it came that the name of Masse was giuen to sundry parts of the liturgie for whereas all might be present at some part of the diuine seruice that part was called missa catechumenorum for that the catechumens might bee present at it and it was ended before their dismissing But the other part which consisteth in the consecration oblation participation is called missa fidelium for that the faithfull onely who were fitte to communicate might be present at it all non-communicants being first dismissed sent away This maketh against the present abuse of the Romane Church wherein all stay and yet none communicate but the priest alone many are made beleeue it is sufficient to be present though they doe not prepare themselues so as to bee fitte to communicate nay oftentimes such as would communicate are repelled This was the fault of some in the Church wherein our Fathers liued but not without the dislike of the better sorte And therefore as Cassander telleth vs Henricus de Gorrichem in tractatu de effectu missae propos 23 reprehendeth certaine pastours of his age who could hardly endure that some of their Parishioners desired euery Sunday to receiue the Sacrament though they liued laudably And hee addeth that seeing the same devotion that was in the Primitiue Church when men communicated euery day is still to be found in some the Pastour should not dislike it if any amongst the common people be so
illud singulare sacrificium offertur veterem Ecclesiae morem reuocare quo non solum sacrificans ipse sed diaconi reliqui Ecclesiae ministri qui diebus solennioribus velut testes taÌ„ti sacrificii necessarâ—…ruÌ„ ministeriorum coadiutores adhibentur vt perceptionis corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi participes se preberent seria canonum sanctione iubebautur sed fideles omnes pro recolendà mortis domini nostrae redemptionis memorià ad hoc mediatoris nostri sacrificium confluentes sedulis exhortationibus monendi excitandi sunt vt prius explorati confessi absoluti sacrosanctae communionis gratiam sumant diuinissimae Eucharistiae participationem vnà cum sacerdote sedulo deuotè frequentent that is And here truely it were expedient that when that most true and singular sacrifice is offered wee should renewe the old custome of the Church by which not only he that celebrateth but the Deacons also and the other ministers of the Church which on the more solemne daies are vsed as witnesses of so solemne an act as coadiutors in respect of sundry necessary ministeries were commaunded by a serious sanction of the canons to be partakers of the sacrament of the Lords body blood but all such faithfull beleeuing men as resort to this sacrifice of our mediator to renew the memory of the death of our Lord and our redemption by the same should be admonished and stirred vp by effectuall and often exhortations hauing examined themselues confessed their sinnes and obtained absolution to receiue the grace of the holy communion and carefully and deuoutly to frequent the participation of the diuine Eucharist together with the priest By this which hath been said it appeareth that the priests receiuing alone neglecting or excluding the coÌ„municating of others as not much necessarie his act being availeable to apply the benefits of Christs passion without receiuing the sacrament is indeed a point of Romish religioÌ„ but not coÌ„tained in the masse for it is contrary to the name of the masse the words of the canon intendmeÌ„t of theÌ„ that coÌ„posed it contrary to the old canons the practice of the Church it proceeded froÌ„ the indeuotion of the people or rather the negligence or error of the guides of the Church that either failed to stirre theÌ„ vp to the performaÌ„ce of such a duty or made them belieue their act was sufficient to communicate the benefits of Christs passion to them not without the dislike of the better sort So that hitherto no proofe is made that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was no Protestant Church but rather the contrary for this Church did euer protest against this abuse professed her dislike of the same acknowledged that this custome was much different from the auncient Honorius in gemma animae saith it is reported that anciently the priests were wont to receiue meale of euery house or familie which custome the Greeks are said to coÌ„tinue still that out of this they made the Lords bread which they did offer for the people hauing coÌ„secrated it distributed it to theÌ„ For euery of theÌ„ that offered this meale were present at the masse respectiuely to theÌ„ it was said in the canon omniuÌ„ circuÌ„stantiuÌ„ qui tibi hoc sacrificiuÌ„ laudis offeruÌ„t that is coÌ„sider the deuotioÌ„ of all that stand rouÌ„d about who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise But after that the Church encreased in number but decayed in deuotion it was decreed in respect of carnall men that they that could should coÌ„municate euery Sunday or on the chief feast daies or thrice in the yeare And now because the people ceasing to coÌ„municate so great a quantity of bread was no longer necessary it was decreed that it should be formed in fashion of a pennie instead of offering meale they offered euery one a penny by which they acknowledged Christs being sould for a certain number of pence These pence were conuerted either to the benefit of the poore or for prouiding of somthing pertaining to the sacrifice in stead of the consecrated bread they were wont to receiue there was giuen them holy bread as they called it Whatsoeuer men think of this which Honorius hath of offering meale it is certaine that in the Primitiue Church they did offer those things that were to be consecrated in the sacrament and that the breade that was there consecrated was vsuall and loafie bread and in forme round as it appeareth by Epiphanius in Ancoratu Gregory in his dialogues who calleth the bread of consecration coronas round â—…aues all which things shew a Protestant Church Wherefore let vs come to the next point of Romish religion supposed to be contained in the masse which is the depriuing of the people of the one part of the Sacrament and the giuing them the same onely in one kind In the Primitiue Church saith â— Lyra the Sacrament was ministred in both kinds Dionysius Carthusianus agreeth with him affirming the same which thing may be prooued by innumerable testimonies of antiquity Ignatius saith there is one bread broken to all one cup distributed to all After the offering is made let euery one saith Clement in order take the Lords body and his precious blood with all reuerent shamefastnes feare The bread saith Dionysius which was one is broken in parts the cup that is but one is divided amongst al. Iustin Martyr in his 2 Apologie saith that after he that is the president hath finished his thanksgiuing the people by a joyfull acclamation haue approoued consented to the same the deacons ministers divide vnto euery one of theÌ„ that are present that each one may partake of that bread wine water ouer which the blessing thanksgiuing hath bin powred out and they doe beare the same to them that are absent Of whose hand saith Tertullian speaking of a faithfull woman married to an Infidell shall shee receiue of whose cup shall she partake Cyprian in his Epist. to Cornelius How doe we teach or prouoke them in for the confession of Christs name to shed their bloud if wee deny vnto theÌ„ when they are to enter into this warfare the blood of Christ or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdome if wee shall not first admit them to drinke the cup of the Lord iure communicationis by the right of communicating in another place Therfore they daylie drinke the cup of Christs blood that they may shed their bloud for Christ. And in a 3 place speaking of a certain child that had bin polluted in the idols temple he saith When as the solemnities were fulfilled the deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present when other had receiued her course came but the little girle by the instinct of God turned away her
face began to close her mouth with her lips to refuse the cup but the deacon desisted not but though she resisted powred into her mouth out of the chalice And disputing against them that were named Aquarii he saith In ministring the cup to the people contrary to that which Christ did taught they giue water insteed of wine Let them tell vs saith Origon what people that is that vse to drinke bloud Ambrose If so often as the bloud of Christ is powred out it be powred out for the remission of sins it behoueth me alwayes to receiue it that my sins may be forgiuen me Laurence the deacon saith Sixtus the B. cōmitted vnto him the dispensation of the Lords bloud made him his consort in consummating the Sacraments Hierom vpō Sophonie the Priests which doe serue about the Eucharist and distribute the bloud of the Lord vnto his people do wickedly against the Law of Christ when they think that the words not the life of him that prayeth make the Eucharist Augustine Cùm frangitur hostia dum sanguis de calice in or a fidelium funditur quid aliud quam dominici corporis in cruce immolatio eiusque sanguinis de latere effusio designatur That is When the hoast is broken the bloud powred out of the chalice into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing is represented thereby but the offering of Christs body on the crosse the powring of the blood out of his side ◠Nazianzen Reverere mysticam mensam ad quam accessisti panem quem participasti poculum cui communicasti passionibus Christi initiatus Reverence the Lords Table to which thou hast accesse the bread whereof thou hast beene partaker the cup in which thou hast communicated being initiated in the passions of Christ. ◠Cyrill of Hierusalem Concavâ manu suseipe corpus Christi dicens Amen tum verò post communionem corporis Christi accede ad calicem illius c. dicens Amen That is Receiue the body of Christ with a hollow hand saying Amen and after the partaking of the body of Christ come also to the cup of the Lord c saying Amen And Chrysostome most fully to this purpose It is not now as in the time of the Old testament where the Priest did eate same things and the people some other and where it was not lawfull for the people to partake of those things whereof the Priest did partake but one body is proposed to all and one cup. Gregory His body is there receiued his flesh is there divided for the saluation of the people his blood is not now shed vpon the hands of Infidels but into the mouthes of beleeuers ◠Ordo Romanus put forth by Cassander The Archdeacon taking the challice confirmeth all thē with the Lords blood whom the Pope had ceased to communicate in the body of the Lord. And againe As the Archdeacon doth confirme those that the Pope communicateth in the body of the Lord so do the other deacons confirme them that the other Bishops or priests communicate Liber sacramentorū put out by Gregory prescribeth thus When the priest giueth the Lords body let him say the body of our Lord Iesus Christ keepe thee vnto eternall life amen And let him that receiueth say I will receiue the celestiall bread will call on the name of the Lord. Also whē the priest giueth the cup let him say the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ keep thee vnto eternall life let him that receiueth it say I will receiue the cup of saluation Beda The body of Christ is not killed nor his blood shed by the hands of Infidels to their own destruction but it is receiued by the mouth of beleeuers to saluation The 11 t councel of Toledo provideth that such as through weakenes cannot receiue the whole sacrament but onely drinke of the mysticall cuppe shall not for this be separated from the body of Christ. Charles the great The mysterie of the Lords body blood is daily receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament Rabanus Moguntinus God would haue the sacraments of his body and blood receiued into the mouths of the faithfull that by the visible worke the invisible effect might be shewed Paschasius It is he only that breaketh this bread by the hands of his ministers distributes it to the beleeuers saying take yee drinke yee all of this aswell ministers as other beleeuers for this is the cup of my blood of the new eternall testament Haimo vpon the 1. Cor. 10. The cup is called a communication as it were a participation because all doe communicate of it doe take part of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it Rupertus Abbas The priest distributeth the bread wine putting them into the mouthes of the faithfull Anselm All we which receiue of one bread one cup of the Lord are made one body Lanfrancus hath the same words that afore we cited out of Augustine Algerus Because we liue so by bread drinke that we cannot want either of them Christ would haue them both in his sacrament least if either were wanting the signification of life beeing imperfit hee might bee thought to be imperfit life Petrus Cluniacensis abbas The flesh of Christ was given to man to be eaten vnder the forme of bread the blood of Christ to be drunke vnder the forme of wine that as men doe principally vse bread wine for the maintaining of this present life so for the life that is eternall they might be sed with the body blood of Christ here spiritually hereafter both spiritually corporally In the primitiue Church saith Caietan the people did communicate in both kinds as appeareth in the 1 Cor. 11. This custome continued not only in the time of persecution in the time of the martyrs whom Cyprian would haue to bee comforted strengthened with drinking the cup of the Lord before they came to drinke of the cup of Martyrdome but euen in the time of peace also And therefore we reade not onely of the making providing of dishes but of ministeriall chalices much different from those wherein they now consecrate out of which the priest receiueth which were therefore named ministeriall chalices because they served not to offer but to minister the bloud of Christ to the people In the pontificall of Damasus in the life of Syluester we reade that Constantine builded a Church in the citty of Naples where hee offered two plates or dishes and 10 ministeriall chalices weighing euery one of them two pounds Of this sort was that of blessed Remigius as we find in Hincmarus in which these verses were Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro c. That is let the people draw life out of this sacred blood Our Fathers sayth Ioachimus Vadianus
did see in the greater Church of Sangalli a chalice guilded with gold that weighed threescore and tenne markes of siluer provided no doubt for the publique communion of the people formerly vsed Beatus Rhenanus saith that Conradus Pellicanus a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians that they are forbidden to possesse any vessels of price besides a siluer chalice and a pipe with which the lay people might sucke out the bloud of our Lord. Besides the booke written more then foure hundred yeares since concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz amongst chalices of gold of a greate weight hauing handles and golden Crosses c reckoneth also syluer pipes six in number if I be not deceiued deputed to this vse of sucking out the bloud of our Lord which I suppose sayth hee the Archbishop was wont to vse Ordo Romanus sheweth that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate the Archdeacon giueth him to drinke of the holy chalice and afterwards powreth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cuppe which the acoluth doth hold that the people may be confirmed or receiue the sacrament of the Lords bloud out of the sacred vessell For the wine that was not consecrated being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified The Bishops therefore come in order to receiue of the hande of the Pope and aftar them all the Priestes come vp that they may communicate at the alter and while the Archdeacon communicateth the chiefe Bishop that is present holdeth the challice for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome so priestes should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches The Archdeacon after hee hath communicated receiueth the chalice back againe from the Bishop and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood to whom the Pope hath giuen the communion of the body of our Lord. This seruice being performed by the altar hauing receiued by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed the Archdeacon deliuereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth to be layed vp by him in the vestery Then doth the pope goe downe to giue the communion to the Princes of the people and their wiues and as the Archdeacon doth confirme those to whom the Pope giueth the Communion of the Lords body so do the other Deacons confirme them to whom after the Pope hath ministred to those of the better sort the other Bishops and Priestes do giue the Communion and as soone as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergie and people the schoole of singers beginneth to sing the antheme appointed for the Communion and after that when the Pope thinketh fit Glory be to the Father c. Here wee see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds wherevpon â— Cassander feareth not to pronounce that hee verily thinketh it cannot be shewed that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministred in any part of the Catholike Church to the faithfull people in the holy assembly from the Lords table for a thousand yeares and more but vnder both the sacramentall signes of bread and wine Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted by that in the second of the Acts where the faithfull are sayd to haue continued in the breaking of bread and prayer Nor by that wee reade in antiquity of the Lay communion which Caietan childishly vrgeth For sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church haue sufficiently shewed the weakenesse of these sillie allegations Let vs see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church It appeareth by Leo the first that the Manichees as they denied Christ to haue beene borne in the truth of our flesh so they denied him to haue truely dyed and risen againe and therefore they vsed to fast vppon that day that is to vs the day of saluation and ioy And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresie they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholikes and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries they did so temper the matter that with vnworthy mouthes they receiued the Lords body but declined to drinke the blood of our redemption Leo carefully endeauoured to make this thing knowne to all that by these signes they might bee discried that their sacrilegious dissembling might bee found out and that being discouered they might by sacerdotall auctoritie be cast out of the society of the Saints By this of Leo it appeareth that the Manichees out of an hereticall conceipt began to communicate in one kinde and that all were wont to communicate in both kindes that hereby the Manichees might be discouered and knowne from other right beleeuers in that they would communicate but in one kinde alone Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note In the time of Gelasius there were certain found that out of some superstitious conceipt would not communicate in both kindes Wee haue found saith Gelasius that certaine hauing receiued a portion of the sacred Body onely abstaine from the cup of the most holy bloud Which men because they are saide to be holden with I know not what superstition either let them receiue the whole Sacrament or let them be put and kept frrom the whole seeing there can be no division of one and the same mysterie without grievous sacriledge Thirdly whereas in case of necessity as when children or such as were sicke and weake were to receiue the communion the auncient did sometimes dippe the mysticall bread into the consecrated wine and so gaue it vnto them as it appeareth by the history of Serapion by that which Cyprian and Prosper report and by that which the Councell of Turon prescribeth that the Eucharist which is reserued for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord that so the Priest may truely say The body and blood of our Lord be beneficiall vnto thee vnto eternall life Some beganne to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion vnder pretence of carefull avoyding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ and greater reuerence towards the same For certaine Monkes brought the same custome into their Monasteries ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custome of other Churches But that they were forced so to doe by the rudenesse of their novices who they feared would runne into some grosse neglect if they should receiue the blood of Christ apart Neither did this custome stay here but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also for Ivo Carnotensis about the yeare 1100 hath these wordes Let them not communicate in the bread dipped but according to the decree of the Councell of Toledo let them communicate in the bodie apart and in the blood apart those onely excepted to whom it is not prescribed but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped out of
due consideration of the feare of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted for the authour of the booke intituled Micrologus saith It is not authenticall that certaine doe dippe the body of the Lord and hauing so dipped it giue it to the people thinking thereby to make vp vnto them the whole communion But the Roman order is against this and doth prescribe that vpon Good friday when they consecrate not but vse the bread consecrated the day before they shall take wine that is not consecrated and consecrate it with the Lords player and dipping of the Lords body into it that so the people may receiue the whole Sacrament which prescription were superfluous if it were enough to dippe the body of Christ the day before so to keep it to giue it so dipped to the people to cōmunicate in Pope Iulius in order of Popes the 36th writing to the Bishops of Egypt doth altogether forbid any such dipping commandeth the bread cup to be receiued apart What the credit of this Epistle is which the authour of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope Iulius I know not neither do I thinke that any such custome of giuing the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope Iulius But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be vsed in the Church found great opposition therfore this supposed constitution of Iulius is renewed cōfirmed in the 3d councel of Bracar Micrologus addes that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certaine Bishoppes commandeth them to excommunicate all those that receiuing the Lords body abstained from the participation of the cuppe pronouncing in the same decree that such diuision of the Sacrament cannot bee without horrible sacriledge By this of Micrologus it is evident that they thought in those times that not onely the communicating in one kind alone out of such erroneous conceipts as those of the Manichees and other like but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramentall bread whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kindes Neither doth Micrologus alone shew the dislike that then was of such dipping but the like wee may finde in the writings of sundry worthy men Hildebertus Cenomanensis Hoec ideo tibi frater exaravi vt excitatus evigiles vt videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio nec Evangelica traditio consonat nec decreta concordant In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare quod nec ex dominica institutione nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum si Mathaeum si Marcum si Lucam consulas seorsim panem traditum invenies seorsim vinum c nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus excepto tantummodo illo discipulo quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret sic Papa Iulius ait c. That is Brother I haue therefore written these things vnto thee that being stirred by me thou mightest bee awakened to see that the manner of deliuering of the sacrament of the altar which is growne into vse in your monasterie is neither consonant to the evangelicall tradition nor agreeing with the decrees For in your monasterie it is become a custome to giue the mysticall bread to none but dipped which will never be found to haue taken beginning from the Lords institution or authenticall constitutions For if thou consult Mathew or Marke or Luke thou shalt finde that the bread was deliuered apart and the wine apart c. for wee reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any other but onely to that disciple whom by the dipped soppe he meant to shew to be the traitour and not that he would haue the sacrament so ministred and so Pope Iulius sayth c. From the custome of dipping the mysticall bread into the blood giving it so dipped vnto the people for feare of shedding the blood of Christ if it should haue beene ministred apart some proceeded farther and began to teach the people that seeing the body blood of Christ cannot be separated in that they partake of the one they partake of the other also and that therefore it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde alone But herein they gaue no satisfaction either to themselues or others For though it be true sayth Durandus that they are not separated and that he that receiueth the one receiueth the other also yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous but both are to bee receiued For whereas wine breedeth blood wherein the soule life is seated according to that in Leviticus The soule of all flesh is in the blood of it and whereas in the offerings that were of old the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed was offered for the body and the blood of them for the soule if wee should receiue Christs body and together with it the blood vnder the forme of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ and not vnder the forme of wine signifying exhibiting vnto vs the blood of Christ wee might bee thought to neglect the saluation and good of our soules And els-where hee saith that hee that receiueth onely the consecrated bread receiueth not the whole entire Sacrament For howsoeuer it be true that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread yet is it not there sacramentally seeing bread doth not signifie the blood but the body of Christ neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place hee addeth out of Innocentius tertius that though the blood of Christ be receiued with the body vnder the forme of bread and the body with the blood vnder the forme of wine yet neither can wee drinke the blood of Christ vnder the forme of bread which wee eat nor eat the body of Christ vnder the forme of wine which wee drinke And sundry of the Schoolemen agree with him in this poynt resoluing that though Christ bee whole and entire in either part of the sacrament yet both parts are necessary First because the exhibiting of the body blood of Christ distinctly representeth his passion in which his blood was separated from his body And secondly because in this sorte Christs body is more fitly and significantly exhibited vnto vs in the nature of food and his blood of drinke If this sacrament bee worthily receiued vnder both kinds sayth Alexander of Hales there is a greater efficacy and working of grace causing an vnity betweene the mysticall body Christ the head then when it is receiued in one kinde onely And therefore he sayth though the receiuing vnder one kinde bee sufficient yet that which is vnder both is of more
to permit leaue free the vse of the cup to the lay people being moved so to doe by Charles the Archduke his sonne the Duke of Bavaria his son in law and the due consideration of the necessity of his subiects There are extant certaine articles concerning reformation of manners Church discipline proposed in the councell of Trent by the embassadours of Charles the ninth the French King amongst which the 18 article is that the auncient decree of Leo and Gelasius touching the communion vnder both kindes might be reviued brought to be in vse againe But when the French perceiued that there were scarce any footesteps of the libertie of auncient councells to be discerned in the councell of Trent that all things were swayed and disposed by the absolute commaund of Pius the fourth then Pope the embassadours were commaunded to make a protestation in the name of the King their master the words of which protestation are these Wee refuse to bee subject to the commaund disposition of Pius the fourth Wee reiect wee refuse contemne all the judgments censures decrees of the same Pius And although most holy Fathers your religion life and learning was ever and euer shall bee of great esteeme with vs yet seeing indeed you doe nothing but all things are done at Rome rather then at Trent and the things that are here published are rather the deerees of Pius the fourth then of the councell of Trent wee denounce protest here before you all that whatsoeuer things are decreed published in this assembly by the meere will pleasure of Pius neither the most Christian King will euer approue nor the French Church euer acknowledge to be the decrees of a generall councell Besides this the King our master commaundeth all his Arch-Bishops Bishops and Abbots to leaue this assembly and presently to depart hence then to returne againe when there shall be hope of better more orderly proceedings Wherefore from this point of Romish Religion touching the communion in one kinde which findeth no helpe in the publique liturgie vsed in the dayes of our Fathers by which it is evident that the people were wont to cōmunicate in both kindes when that forme of divine seruice was first composed nor no liking or approbation of the best and worthiest guides of Gods Church then liuing let vs come to the next which is the propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and the dead This indeede is a grand point of Romish Religion and if M Brerelie can prooue that it is contained in the publique Liturgie that was vsed in the Church at and immediatly before Luthers appearing and consequently that all that vsed that Liturgie had such an opinion of a sacrifice hee hath said much to proue that the Church vnder the Papacie was no Protestant Church but this neither hee nor all the most learned Papists in the world will euer be able to proue First therefore I will make it appeare that the Canon of the Masse importeth no such sacrifice And secondly I will shew at large that neither before nor after Luthers appearing the Church beleeued or knew any such new reall sacrificing of Christ as is now imagined Touching the canon of the Masse it is true that therein there is often mention of sacrifice and oblation but Luther professeth that the words may be vnderstood in such a sense as is not to be disliked and hee saith hee could so expound it and that somewhere hee hath so expounded it but seeing it is obseure and may beare diuers senses and a better and more cleare forme of divine celebration may be brought in he will not honour it so much as to giue it that sense which it may well carry and in which the first composers of it and others after did vse it but that wherein they of Rome will now needes haue it to be vnderstood That the forme of words vsed in the canon are obscure in sundry parts of it and hard to bee vnderstood euen by the learned Cassander confesseth and therefore thinketh it fit it were explained illustrated by some briefe scholies put in the margent or inserted into the text by way of parenthesis The obscuritie that is in it groweth as he rightly obserueth partly out of the disuse discontinuing of certaine old obseruations to which the words of the canon composed long since haue a reference and partly from the vsing of the word sacrifice in diuers and different senses though all connexed the sudden passing from the vsing of it in one sense to the vsing of it in another It is not vnknowne to them that are learned that in the Primitiue Church the people were wont to offer bread wine and that out of that which they offered a part was consecrated to become vnto them the Sacrament of the Lords body bloud other parts converted to other good holy vses Respectiuely to this ancient custome are those prayers conceiued that are named secretae the first part of the canon wherein wee desire that God will accept those gifts presents offerings and sacrifices which we bring vnto him and that hee will make them to become vnto vs the body bloud of his Son Christ which onely are that sacrifice that procureth the remission of our sins and our reconciliation and acceptation with God So that to take away this obscurity that the words may haue a true sense the ancient custome must bee brought backe againe or at least it must be conceiued that the elements of bread wine that are set vpon the mysticall table are to be consecrated are brought thither and offered in the name of the people and that as being their presents they are symboles of that inward sacrifice whereby they dedicate and giue themselues and all that they haue vnto God Touching the second cause of the obscurity of the wordes of the Canon which is the vsing of the word sacrifice and ◅ffering in so manifold and different senses and the sudden passing from the one of them to the other wee must obserue that by the name of sacrifice gift or present first the oblation of the people is meant that consisteth in bread and wine brought and set vpon the Lords table In which againe 2 things are to be considered the outward action and that which is signified thereby to wit the peoples dedicating of themselues and all that they haue to God by faith and deuotion offering to him the sacrifice of praise In this sense is the word sacrifice vsed in the former part of the canon as I haue already shewed In respect of this is that prayer powred out to God that he will be mindfull of his seruants that doe offer vnto him this sacrifice of praise that is these outward things in acknowledgement that all is of him that they had perished if he had not sent his sonne to redeeme them that vnlesse they eate the flesh and drink the blood
of Christ they haue no life that he hath instituted holy Sacraments of his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine in which he will not onely represent but exhibit the same vnto all such as hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and therefore they desire him so to accept and sanctifie these their oblations of breade and wine which in this sort they offer vnto him that they may become vnto them the body and blood of Christ that soe partaking in them they may bee made partakers of Christ and all the benefits of redemption and saluation that hee hath wrought Secondly by the name of sacrifice is vnderstood the sacrifice of Christs body wherein wee must first consider the thing offered and secondly the manner of offering The thing that is offered is the body of Christ which is an eternall and perpetuall propitiatory sacrifice in that it was once offered by death vpon the crosse and hath an euerlasting and neuer failing force and efficacie Touching the manner of offering Christs body and blood wee must consider that there is a double offering of a thing to God First soe as men are wont to doe that giue something to God out of that they possesse professing that they will no longer be owners of it but that it shall be his and serue for such vses and imployments as hee shall conuert it too Secondly a man may bee sayd to offer a thing vnto GOD in that he bringeth it to his presence setteth it before his eyes and offereth it to his view to incline him to doe something by the sight of it and respect had to it In this sort Christ offereth himselfe and his body once crucified dayly in heauen and soe intercedeth for vs not as giuing it in the nature of a gift or present for hee gaue himselfe to God once to be holy vnto him for euer nor in the nature of a sacrifice for hee dyed once for sinne and rose againe neuer to die any more but in that hee setteth it before the eyes of GOD his Father representing it vnto him and soe offering it to his view to obtaine grace and mercie for vs. And in this sort wee also offer him dayly on the altar in that commemorating his death and liuely representing his bitter passions endured in his body vpon the crosse wee offer him that was once crucified and sacrificed for vs on the crosse and all his sufferings to the view and gracious consideration of the Almighty earnestly desiring and assuredly hoping that hee will encline to pitty vs and shew mercie vnto vs for this his dearest sonnes sake who in our nature for vs to satisfie his displeasure and to procure vs acceptation endured such and soe grieuous things This kind of offering or sacrificing Christ commemoratiuely is twofold inward and outward Outward as the taking breaking and distributing the mysticall bread and powering out the cuppe of blessing which is the Communion of the blood of Christ. The inward consisteth in the faith and deuotion of the Church people of God so commemorating the death and passion of Christ their crucified Sauiour and representing and setting it before the eyes of the Almighty that they flye vnto it as their only stay and refuge and beseech him to be mercifull vnto them for his sake that endured all these things to satisfie his wrath worke their peace good And in this sense and answerable herevnto that is which wee finde in the canon where the Church desireth Almighty God to accept those oblations of bread and wine which shee presenteth vnto him to make them to become vnto the faithfull communicants the body bloud of Christ who the night before he was betraied tooke bread into his sacred hands lifted vp his eyes to heauen gaue thankes blessed it gaue it to his disciples saying take and eate yee all of this for this is my body And in like manner after hee had supped tooke the cuppe and gaue thankes blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying drinke yee all of this for this is the new Testament in my bloud doe this as oft as you shall drinke it in remembrance of mee And then proceedeth and speaketh vnto Almighty GOD in this sort Wherefore o Lord wee thy seruants and thy holy people mindfull of that most blessed passion of the same CHRIST thy sonne our Lord as also of his resurrection from the dead and his glorious ascension into heauen doe offer to thy diuine maiestie out of thine owne gifts consecrated and by mysticall blessing made vnto vs the body and bloud of thy sonne Christ a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice and an vndefiled sacrifice the holie bread of eternall life and the cuppe of euerlasting saluation that is wee offer to thy view and sette before thine eyes the crucified body of Christ thy sonne which is here present in mystery and sacrament and the blood which hee once shedde for our sakes which wee know to be that pure holy vndefiled and eternall sacrifice wherewith onely thou art pleased desiring thee to bee mercifull vnto vs for the merit and worthinesse thereof and soe to looke vpon the same sacrifice which representatiuely wee offer to thy viewe as to accept it for a full discharge of vs from our sinnes and a perfect propitiation that soe thou mayest behold vs with a pleased cheerefull and gratious countinance This is the meaning of that prayer in the canon supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris c. as the best interpreters of the canon doe tell vs. And when in the same prayer wee desire that this sacrifice may be accepted for vs as the sacrifices of Abell Abraham and Melchisedec were they obserue that this comparison must not be vnderstood in quantitie but in similitude onely For the thing it selfe is infinitely better then the figure and the sacrifice that CHRIST offered and wee here commemorate is incomparablie more excellent then those of Abell Abraham and Melchisedec And that therefore the meaning of those words is That as God accepted those sacrifices which his seruants offered vnto him before the comming of CHRIST his sonne as prefigurations of that sacrifice which he was afterwards to offer and as a profession of their hope of remission of sinnes by the same soe it will please him to accept the sacrifice which CHRIST once offered and wee now commemorate for vs and vs for it That soe our sinnes may be remitted and wee receiued to fauour After this there followeth another prayer in the canon wherein as humble suppliants they that come to celebrate and to communicate beseech Almighty God to commaund the oblations which they offer to be carried by the hands of his holy Angell vnto his altar that is on high and into the view and sight of his diuine Maiestie that soe many as shall by partaking of the altar receiue the sacred body and bloud of his sonne may bee filled vvith all heauenly benediction
non diffido scio quid faciam calicem salutaris accipiam That is When my strength shall faile I will not bee troubled neither will I despaire I know what I will doe I will take the cup of saluation And in another place Totum quod dare possum miserum corpus istud est id si minus est addo corpus ipsius Nam illud de meo est meum est parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est mihi de te Domine suppleo quod minus habeo in me O dulcissima reconciliatio O suavissima satisfactio That is All that I can giue is this miserable body if that be too litle I adde his body for that is of mine and it is mine a litle child is borne vnto vs a sonne is given vnto mee from thee I take ô Lord to supply what I finde wanting in my selfe O most sweete reconciliation O most sweet satisfactoin Who doth not see that God doth by such a faith as that is that is exercised in the celebration of this representatiue sacrifice and in the eating of the body of Christ the sufferings whereof are here represented apply the benefit of Christ his dearest sonne to his faithfull ones Neither doe wee attribute this application to the priest but to God nor to our worke but to Gods benefit Which yet wee receiue no otherwise but by faith with the assent of our owne will Hitherto wee haue heard the words of the authour of the Enchiridion and the same authour els-where sayth that the orthodoxe diuines deny the externall action which wee call the sacramentall oblation to conferre grace or to haue any spirituall effect ex opere operato It is true sayth hee that a wicked man may pronounce the words of Christ and so make the elements of bread wine to become the sacrament of the Lords body and bloud and this sacrament ex opere operato that is out of the very nature of a sacrament of it selfe how ill soeuer the minister bee will conferre grace instrumentally to all such as receiue it without such indisposition as might hinder the working of it But if wee speake of the offering of Christ representatiuely it hath no force farther then the faith of the offerer extendeth If the priest therefore not onely outwardly but inwardly also by the acte of faith present the sufferings of Christ in the body of his flesh to God in desire by the merit thereof to escape his wrath hee bringeth much good vpon himselfe if hee devoutly beseech God for his Christs sake whose sufferings hee representeth vnto him to bee mercifull to the people committed to his charge or to any other there is no doubt but this his prayer in the nature of a prayer is most powerfull to obtaine in this kind But if hee bee wicked faithles his representatiue offering of Christ of meerely in respect of it selfe worketh no good to himselfe nor any other For in the representatiue offering of Christs passion to God must be included a supplication made to God for that passion sake and a desire of those good things that wee need Now the prayer of such a sinner God heareth not but the people spiritually representing vnto God by the acte of their faith that which the priest doth sacramentally obtaine all desired good and the removing of all evill not by force of that the priest doth but by their owne faith which is stirred vp by that outward acte done by him The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen agree with the authour of the Enchiridion their words are these Consecratione factâ in missâ Christus Dominus qui seipsum aliquando in corpore suo mortali Deo patri coelesti cruentum sacrificium pro peccatis mundi obtulit denuo totius ecclesiae nomine modo incruento spirituali representatione commemoratione sacratissimae suae passionis offertur quod ipsum fit quando ecclesia Christum eius verum corpus verumque sanguinem Deo Patri cum gratiarum actione oratione attentâ pro suis totius mundi peccatis proponit seu repraesentat quanquam enim sacrificium illud in eâ formâ quâ in cruce offerebatur semel tantum oblatum sit semel tantum sanguis effusus vt ita repeti iterumque offerri non possit nihilominus tamen consistit manet tale sacrificium coram Deo perpetuò in suâ virtute efficaciâ acceptum ita vt sacrificium illud in cruce oblatum non minus hodierno die in conspectu patris sit efficax vigens quam eo die quo de saucio latere sanguis exiuit aqua Quapropter cum vulnerati corporis nostri plagae pretio redemptionis semper opus habeant ecclesia proponit Deo Patri pretium illud in verâ fide devotione iterum sed figuratiuè spiritualitèr ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum non quod huic operi suo quo videlicet commem or at repraesentat sacrificium illius meritum ascribat remissionis peceatorum vt quam solus Christus cruentâ suâ oblatione in cruce nobis promeruit verum tali suo commemoratiuo mystico fidei sacrificio in quo repraesentat ecclesia sistit in conspectum patris verum corpus sanguinem eius vnigeniti applicat sibi accommodat magnum illud donatiuum remissionis peccatorum quod Christus impetravit cum accipiat remissionem peccatorum per nomen eius qui credit in eum Act. 10. That is So soone as the consecration is done in the Masse Christ the Lord who sometime offered himselfe in his mortall body a bloudy sacrifice to God his heauenly father for the sins of the whole world is now offered again after an vnbloudy manner by representation and commemoration of his most sacred passion which thing is then done when the Church doth propose and represent Christ and his true body ' and bloud to God the Father with thanksgiuing and with earnest prayer for the remission of her sinnes and the sinnes of the whole world for although that sacrifice in such sort as it was offered on the Crosse was offered onely once and his bloud only once powred forth so that he can no more be so offered yet notwithstanding that sacrifice remaineth and abideth before God perpetually in its vertue and efficacie and is so acceptable vnto him that being but once offered on the Crosse it is no lesse effectuall and of force in the sight of God to day then it was that day when water and bloud streamed out of his wounded side Wherefore seeing the soares and hurts of our wounded bodies haue alwayes need of the price of redemption the Church proposeth to God in faith and devotion that price againe but figuratiuely and spiritually to obtaine remission of sin not as if shee did ascribe to this her worke whereby she commemorateth and representeth that his sacrifice the meriting of
remission of sinnes which Christ onely merited for vs by his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse but by such her commemoratiue and mysticall sacrifice of faith in which shee representeth and setteth before the eyes of God the Father the true body and bloud of his onely begotten Sonne shee applyeth to her selfe that great donatiue of remission of sinnes which Christ obtained it being so that euery one that beleeueth in him receiueth remission of sinnes by his Name as it is in the 10th of the Acts. In the booke proposed by Charles the 5th written by certaine learned and godly men much commended to him by men worthie to bee credited as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion we shall finde the same explication of this point touching the sacrifice that I haue already deliuered out of the former authors the words are these Omnis ecclesia missam in quâ—… verum corpus verus sanguis Christi conficitur sacrificium esse consentit sed incruentum spirituale in eâ enim modò religiosé piè agatur Deo quatuor spiritualiter offeruntur Initio enim Christus qui seipsum patri in mortali corpore cruentam sufficientem beneplacentem pro totius mundi peccatis hostiam cruci affixus obtulit idem ille in missâ totius ecclesiae nomine repraesentativo sacrificio eidem deo patri immolatur quod certè fit cùm ecclesia illum eiusque verum corpus sanguinem Deo patri pro totius mundi peccatis piâ prece sistit nam etsi oblatio illa in cruce semel facta transiit non reiterabilis victima tamen ipsa immolata perpetuá virtute consistit vt non minus hodiè in conspectu patris oblatio illa in iis qui eum Deo religiosa fide repraesentant sit efficax quà m eo die quo de sacro latere sanguis aqua exivit In quam sententiam patres corpus sanguinem Christi in altari praesentia nunc pretium pro peccatis totius mundi nunc pretium redemptionis nostrae nunc victimam salutarem appellare consueverunt Et Chrysostomus testatur nos eandem hostiam quae semel oblata est in sancta sanctorum semper offerre at que unum esse utrobique sacrificium unum Christum hic plenum existentem illic plenum sic tamen ut quod nos agimus sacrificium exemplar sit illius in commemorationem eius quod factum est semel Nec ab re Deus enim in hoc donavit nobis Christum Iesum Filium suum ut de nostris viribus diffisi â—…deque nostris peccatis nobis probè conscii illum tanquam unicam potissimam victimam pro nostris peccatis satisfactoriam Deo patri repraesentemus ipse enim natus est ipse datus est nobis ut quicunque in eum credimus non pereamus sed pacem cum Deo reconciliati per sanguinem eius habeamus Secundò Ecclesia in hoc missae sacrificio seipsam quoque quatenus Christi corpus mysticum est per Christum Deo offerre non dubitat Tertiò In missâ sacrificium laudis offertur Postremo Ecclesia dona quaedam tam panis quà m vini ex quibus partim corpus sanâ—…uis Christi conficiebantur offerebat partim eleemosynae fiebant iustum est quod populus in hoc sacrificio se non tantum verbis deo consecret sed symbolo aliquo externo testetur quod se totum dedicet Deo Nam is mos in Ecclesiis penè abolitus est cum olim omnibus diebus dominicis panis vinum res aliae ab omnibus tum viris tum mulieribus ad altare offerebantur quemadmodum decreta quae Fabiano tribuuntur testantnr that is The whole Church doth consent that the masse in which the bread and wine are consecrated to become the true body and bloud of Christ is a sacrifice but vnbloudy and spirituall for in it if it be Godly and religiously celebrated foure things are spiritually offered vnto God For first Christ himselfe who being fastened to the crosse offered himselfe to his Father in his mortall body a bloudy sufficient and well pleasing sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world is in the masse offered to the same God his Father in the name of the whole Church by a representatiue oblation which thing truly is then done when the Church piously to intreate mercie for the sins of the whole world presenteth him and his true body and bloud to God the Father for although that oblation that was once made on the crosse be past and cannot be reiterated yet the thing that was then sacrificed and offered abideth hauing a neuer failing vertue and efficacie so that that oblation in them that by a religious faith do represent it vnto God is no lesse effectuall and preuailing to procure them fauour in the sight of God then it was that day that water and blood streamed out of his sacred side And in this sense the fathers are wont sometimes to call the body and blood of Christ present on the altar the price for the sinnes of the whole world somtimes the price of our redemption sometimes the sacrifice that bringeth saluation And Chrysostome witnesseth that we continually and dayly offer the same sacrifice that was once offered and presented into the holiest of all and that both there and here ther is one sacrifice one Christ perfect here and perfect there yet so that that which wee doe is but a representation and done in remembrance of that which was once there done and this not vnfitly for therefore did God giue vs Christ Iesus his sonne that distrusting our owne strength and being guilty to our selues of many sinnes we might represent and set him in the sight of God the Father as the onely and most excellent satisfactorie sacrifice for our sins For he was borne and he was giuen vnto vs that whosoeuer of vs beleeue in him might not perish but might haue peace with God being reconciled by his bloud Secondly the Church in this sacrifice of the masse doubteth not to offer it selfe as the mysticall body of Christ vnto God by Christ. Thirdly in it is offered the sacrifice of praise Lastly the Church was wont to offer certaine gifts of bread and wine out of which some part was consecrated to become the body and bloud of Christ to the faithfull people and the rest was giuen in almes to the poore And truly it is very iust and right that the people in this sacrifice should not consecrate themselues to God in words onely but so as to testifie by some outward symbole that they wholly dedicate themselues to God and therefore it is not well that this custome is almost vtterly abolished whereas aunciently euery Lords day bread and wine and other things were offered on the altar both by men and women as the decrees attributed to Pope Fabian doe testifie After this follow these words in the same place
of the Church by the Ministery whereof they were appointed and not from the words of forme as the other doe Hence also it commeth that they are variable both in their matter and forme The Apostles sayth Alexander of Hales confirmed with the onely imposition of their hands without any certain forme of wordes or outward matter or Element but afterward it was otherwise ordayned both in respect of the one and the other the formes of Baptisme and the Eucharist being appoynted by Christ are kept inviolably without all change but touching the wordes of forme to be vsed in any other of the supposed Sacraments there is no certainty but they are diversly and doubtfully desiuered The reason whereof is because they are of humane devising By this which hath beene sayd it may appeare that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptisme and the Eucharist as euen Bellarmin himselfe is forced to confesse the sacred or holy things sayth he which the Sacraments of the new Law signifie are threefold the grace of Iustification the Passion of Christ and eternall life as Thomas teacheth touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most evident concerning the other it is not so certaine CHAP. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time was euer denyed by many worthy members of the Church and consequently the locall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whether definitiue or circumscriptiue was likewise reiected as a thing impossible To affirme sayth Aquinas that one body may be locally in this place and yet also in another at the same time implyeth a contradiction and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing Scotus confesseth that Egidius Godfredus de font Alanus and Henricus are of the same opinion with Thomas Durandus sayth that which is present in one place definitiuely or circumscriptiuely cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time Whervpon he pronounceth that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament but by reason of a certaine habitudinary vnion betweene it and the sacramentall elements whence it was wont to be sayd that Christs body is personaliter in verbo localiter in coelo sacramentaliter in Eucharistia Personally in the eternall word locally in heauen sacramentally in the Eucharist The first that taught otherwise and brought in the locall presence was Scotus whom Occam followed though he deny not but the former opinion had great fauourers CHAP 17. Of Transubstantiation THe conuersion of the bread and wine into Christs body and blood all of us sayth Caietane do teach in words but in deede many deny it thinking nothing lesse These are diuersly diuided one from another for some by the Conuersion that is in the sacrament vnderstand nothing but Indentity of place that is that the bread is therefore sayd to be made the body of Christ because where the bread is the body of Christ becomes present also others vnderstand by the word Conuersion nothing else but the order of succession that is that the body succeedeth and is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the bread which they thinke to be annihilated was before This opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the maner of his speech he seemeth to decline it Some admit both the word and thing but yet not wholy but only in part as Durandus Bonauentura sayth that some seeing the accidents to remaine both in their being and operation thinke the matter of the sacramentall element still remaineth Other the forme but that the more Catholike or generall opinion is that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christs body and blood We see he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion Occam sayth there are three opinions of Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a couersion of the sacramentall elements the second an annihilation the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ that it is no way changed in substance or substantially cōuerted into Christs body or doth cease to bee but onely that the body of Christ in euery part of it becomes present in euery part of the bread This opinion he sayth the Master of sentences mentioneth not much disliking it yet is it not commonly holden Cameracensis sayth that the more common opinion is that the substance of bread doth not remaine but wholly ceaseth and that though this opinion be not euidently deduced from the scriptures nor concluded out of any determination of the vniuersall Church for ought he can see yet he is resolued to follow it Waldensis sayth hee found in a certaine old booke of decrees that in the yeare 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops Bishoppes and other religious persons in a Synode and that when they were come together they beganne to speake of the body and bloud of Christ some saying one thing some another but that before the third day of meeting they that denyed the substantiall conuersion of the sacramentall elements were silent But in the same booke he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias his booke intituled Quatuor vnum that there were some perhaps many but hardly to be discerned and noted that thought still as Berengarius did whom they then condemned and yet condemned him with the rest in this respect onely disliking him for that refusing the forme of wordes the Church vsed with the nakednesse of his maner of speaking hee gaue offence not following the vse of the Scriptures which every where call things that are signes by the names of things signifyed especially in the matter of Sacraments the more liuely to expresse their vertue and efficacie these men ceased not to charge others secretly that they knew not the nature of figuratiue speaches therefore not without grosse errour killing the soule tooke signes for the things whereof they are signes scorning not a little the folly of them that say the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conuersion doe hang in the ayre or that the senses are deceiued In the same place he sayth that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius but with great vehementie contrary and opposite vnto him to haue beene of opinion that the bread and wine in part are changed and in part remaine these supposed so much onely to bee changed as is to serue for the communicating of the worthy receiuers others thought the whole to be changed but that when vnworthy men come to communicate the body and blood of Christ cease to bee present and the substances of bread and wine returne and are there present to be receiued by them But that it may yet more clearely appeare that the opinion of Transubstantiation neuer passed currantly in the Church let vs adde another testimony
such as are ordained by Heretikes are truly ordayned in the iudgment of our Aduersaries themselues but if all faile he will go backe to prayer for the dead which hath made him dead while hee is aliue and will proue that Bernard confuted Henricus impugning prayer for the dead with a miracle and that therefore the impugning of prayer for the dead is pronounced impious by Gods owne voyce from heauen surely if it could be proued that God gaue testimony by a miracle against Henricus his impugning of prayer for the dead to deliuer them out of Purgatory it were something but neither hee nor all the rabble of Romanistes shall euer proue that Henricus is reported to haue holden many damnable opinions in confutation whereof Bernard might worke a miracle without any respect to his denying prayers for the dead for he contemned the Sacraments denyed reconciliation to penitents the comfort of the holy Eucharist to such as in their greatest distresses desired the same And feared not to exclude infants from the benefitte of the Sacrament of regeneration Bernard himselfe describing him and the good effectes that followed his preaching sheweth that hauing beene a Monke hee became an Apostata that hee gaue himselfe to all impurity and that what hee got by his preaching hee played away at dice or spent it amongst harlots that his preaching wrought so good effectes that Churches were forsaken and left without People People without Priestes priestes without due reuerence and Christians without Christ Churches were reputed Synagogues the Sanctuaries of God denied to bee holy Sacraments accounted vnholy Festiuall daies depriued of Festiuall solemnities men dyed in their sinnes and their soules vvere euery where caught vp and brought to the terrible iudgement-seate neyther reconciled by penitentiall reconciliation nor garded with the Sacrament and holy Communion that the way of the life of Christ was shutte vppe against infants whiles the grace of Baptisme was denyed vnto them and that they were hindered from drawing neere to saluation though the Sauiour him-selfe cryed out aloud for them saying Suffer little children to come vnto mee This is all that Bernard imputeth to him neyther doth Willielmus Abbas as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth charge him with denying of prayer for the dead but one Gotefrey a Monke of Clarauallis whose report is not greatly to bee regarded because what hee addeth aboue that before alleaged by vs touching prayer for the dead invocation of Saints excommunications of Priests Pilgrimages building of Churches and the like hee addeth as out of Bernards Epistle before mentioned wherein there is no such thing So that it is very probable that hee mistooke the matter and imputed such thinges to Henricus as were taught by the Apostolici or some other such like Hitherto wee finde no great proofe of the confirmation of prayer for the dead or any other point of popish errour by miracles so that my Peremptory denyall that euer any miracle was done by any man in times past or in our times to comfirme any of the things controuersed betweene the Papists and vs standeth as yet vncontrouled Wherefore Maister Higgons riseth from Henricus to Gregory the first and Augustine whom hee sent into England for the conuersion of our Nation who hee sayth were Papists and yet wrought many miracles for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached A more trifling fellow I thinke neuer aduentured to put penne to paper for wee confidently deny that eyther Gregory or Augustine were Papists say with Bishop Iewell in his worthy challenge that all the learned Papists in the world cannot proue thay eyther of them held any of those twenty seauen Articles of popish religion mentioned by him If some superstition began in their times to grow in it is not to bee maruayled at neyther will it follow that if Augustine and his Colleagues sent hither to sing the Lords song in a strange land did miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith taught by them that the same miracles confirmed euery superstitious opinion which any of them held For then Cyprian and the African Bishops teaching rebaptization the Orientall Bishoppes thitking it necessary to keepe the feast of Easter with the Iewes Papias and all the worthy Fathers that taught that Christ raising vp the Saintes from the dead shall raigne with them on earth a thousand yeares in all earthly felicity that there are two resurrections the one of the just the other of the wicked and that there are a thousand yeares betweene Lactantius Irenaeus and others excluding the soules of the faithfull departed out of heauen till the resurrection such as held that men may be deliuered out of hell such as held it necessary to minister the Communion to infantes and other like Catholique Christians erring in some point of Doctrine could doe no miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith amongst infidels or mis-belieuers but that the same must be confirmations of their errors God must concurre with thē by confusion as this confused companion speaketh but if this instance serue not the turne he hath another evidence more potent and perswasiue which serued as a Key to vnlocke his vnderstanding and that is this Transubstantiation is affirmed by mee to be one of the greatest mysteries of Popish Religion Gerson is highly approued by mee and yet he affirmeth that Transubstantiation is confirmed by a thousand and a thousand miracles For answere whereunto wee say with Cassander that the names of conversion transmutation trans-formation and trans-elementation are found among the Auncient and that the word Transubstantiation was vsed some hundreds of yeares since but touching the manner of this conversion there is great variety of opinions yet so that all agree in this that they vnderstand such a mutation or chaunge to bee made that that which before was earthly and common bread by the wordes of Institution the invocation of GODS Name and Divine vertue is made a Sacrament of the true Body and Bloud of CHRIST visibly sitting at the right hand of GOD in Heauen and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church And that the Body and Bloud of CHRIST are in the Sacrament and exhibited and giuen as spirituall meate and drinke for the saluation and euerlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same Thus much we doubt not but a thousand and a thousand miracles may confirme and more Gerson doth not say is confirmed by miracle For whereas there is almost infinite varietie of opinions touching the manner of this conversion amongst such as admit it in generality it would bee very hard for Master Higgons or a wiser man then he is to say which of them any miracle euer confirmed All admit saith Caietan the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body Bloud of Christ but in truth many deny that which the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth therefore are diversly divided
some vnderstanding that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ because where the Bread is the Body of Christ becommeth present others vnderstanding nothing but the order of succession whereby the body succeedeth is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the Bread which they suppose to bee annihilated was before which opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the manner of his speech hee seeme to decline it some admitting both the word and thing not wholly but in part as Durandus who thinketh the matter of the bread wine remaineth the forme onely changed some thinking the forme to remaine and the matter to cease Ockam saith there are 3 opinions touching Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a conversion of the Sacramentall Elements the second an annihilation the third maketh the Bread to be so turned into the Body of Christ that it is no way chaunged in substance or substantially converted into Christs body but that onely the body of Christ becommeth present in euery part of the bread Cameracensis Gersons master professeth that for ought he can see the substantiall conversion of the Sacramentall elemēts into the body blood of Christ cannot be proued either out of Scripture or any determination of the Vniuersall Church and maketh it but a matter of opinion inclining rather to the other opinion of Con-substantiation And therefore in his iudgement it was not witnessed by a thousand a thousand persons of most holy life and profound knowledge testifying the truth thereof vnto death by a thousand a thousand miracles So that the thing which Gerson saith hath bin proued by miracles is the true presence of Christs body blood in the Sacrament the exhibition of thē to be the food of oursoules such a change of the elements in vertue grace power of containing in thē cōmunicating to vs Christs body blood as the nature of so excellent a Sacrament requireth This is the key which M. Higgons found to vnlock his vnderstanding that it might runne riot into all idle childish discourses But see the infelicitie of the man He was no sooner at libertie but presently againe he was incompassed brought into such a strait that either he must disclaime my book or his Protestanticall beleefe Yet did he not suffer himselfe long to bee so inclosed but full wisely chose rather to forsake the Religion hee was bredde in and which as a publique Preacher hee had taught others then to disclaime my booke Because as hee saith that Religion cannot bee good that is so falsely and absurdly defended by mee and all the cheefe Authors that euer applied their paines vnto that seruice Surely the poore fugitiue is greatly to be pittied as weake in vnderstanding and medling with things not fitte for him if hee doe that hee doth in simplicity or exceedingly to bee detested as a gracelesse person if he doe it as it is to be feared out of malice For what is it in my Booke that is so false and absurd as that the consideration thereof should make a man forsake his religion is not Transubstantiation one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion as I haue said is that falsely deliuered by mee No but I say no miracle was euer done to confirme any thing defended by the Romanistes against vs and yet Gerson highly commended by mee saith many Miracles haue beene wrought for proofe and confirmation of that Transubstantiation which the Papists at this day beleeue and this is the falsitie and absurditie hee speaketh of That no miracle was euer wrought to proue the monstrous conceit of Popish Transubstantiation or any other Popish error shall stand good when heauen and earth shall be no more And if tenne thousand Gersons nay if so many Angells from heauen should affirme the contrarie I would not beleeue them much lesse Gerson a single witnesse in such a case This is then the absurdity that made him become a Papist that I commend Gerson and yet beleeue not euerything hee saith Truely this absurdity would neuer moue any but an absurd smatterer to alter his Religion For doth not Higgons himselfe admire Pighius Catharinus Contarenus and sundry other from whom he dissenteth in the matter of justification originall sinne and the certainty of grace Doth he not highly commend many that thought the Pope may erre that he is subiect to Generall Councells and may be deposed by them not for Heresie alone but for other enormous crimes also and yet I thinke hee will not be of their opinion So that though Gerson should thinke that the Transubstantiation which we deny was proued by miracles it were no such intollerable absurdity to commend him for much piety deuotion learning and vertue and yet to dissent from him in this point In the matter controuersed in former times in the Roman Church touching the conception of the blessed virgin were there not whorthy men on both sides did not the Patrons of her spotlesse conception pretend and alledge sundry miracles and visions for confirmation thereof yet was it no absurdity for Cardinall Caietan following the current of Antiquity to dissent from them how many worthy soeuer they were to call all their pretended miracles in question But indeed here is no such matter for Gerson is not so ill aduised as to dissent from his worthy Master confidently to affirme that a thousand and a thousand renowned for piety and learning by a thousand a thousand miracles gaue testimony to the opinion of the substantiall conuersion of the Sacramentall elements into the body blood of Christ which the Master of the Sentences the Author of the Ordinary glosse professe to be doubtfull and Caietan saith so many admitted not euen in his time But the onely thing hee affirmeth to haue beene confirmed by Miracles is that Christs body blood are truely present in the Sacrament that they are giuen to be the foode of our soules and that the outward elements are changed to become the body and blood of Christ which wee deny not though we dissent from the Papists touching the manner of the conuersion which they imagine to be substantiall to which opinion haply Gerson might consent as Cameracensis also did though he professed he could not see the deduction of it from Scripture or any determination of the Church and inclined rather to thinke that the substance of bread and wine remaine and that the body and blood of Christ become present together with them according to that of Cusanus who saith certaine ancient Diuines are found to haue been of opinion that the Bread is not substantially chaunged but that it is clothed vpon with a more noble substance as we hope to be clothed vpon with the light of glory our substance remaining the same it was and seemeth not much to dislike their opinion Thus wee see poore runnagate Higgons hath made a great out-cry when there
made partakers of the life of grace or being already partakers of it to be strengthned confirmed and continued in the same Thirdly that the elements of bread and wine presenting to our consideration the spirituall nourishing force that is in the body blood of Christ are not a bolished in their substances as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine but onely changed in vse in that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and communicate vnto vs the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working of the same Fourthly that the meaning of Christs wordes when hee said this is my body this is my blood is This which outwardly and visibly I giue vnto you is in substance bread and wine and in mysterie and exhibitiue signification my body and blood but this which invisibly together with the visible element I giue vnto you is my very body that was crucified and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sinnes Fifthly that the body and blood of Christ which the Sacraments doe not signifie only but exhibite also and whereof the faithfull are to be partakers are truely present in the blessed Sacrament but the one part denieth that they are present secundum suum esse naturale that is in the naturall beeing or beeing of essence because the body of Christ being finite and hauing finite dimensions cannot be in many places at one time the other part on the contrary side answereth that the body of Christ is finite indeed but that because it is personally ioyned to the Deity it is wheresoeuer the Deity is yet doe not they of this part say it is euery where localitèr but repletiuè personalitèr that is not locally but repletiuely and personally which distinction Zanchius professeth hee doth not well vnderstand but saith if their meaning bee that the body of Christ is present secundum esse personale that is in that being of diuine subsistence communicated to it whereof I haue spoken before they say true and contradict not the other who speake of the naturall beeing of Christes body or beeing of essence and not of existence or subsistence which is infinite and Diuine And though Christs body be euery where in that personall being as well as in the Sacrament yet is it not any where else presented vnto vs in the nature of spirituall food So that there is no difference between these men touching the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament neither will there bee any found touching the eating of it for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten a traiection from the mouth into the stomacke and a turning of the substance of the meate into the substance of the eater a bodily eating of Christs body there cannot bee seeing it is impassible and admitteth no such diuision as is made in chewing and besides if it should bee swallowed whole it cannot bee turned into the substance of our bodies but rather turneth vs into the substance of it selfe so that there is onely a spirituall eating of Christ consisting in that chewing that is by meditation vpon the seuerall and distinct thinges that are found in his natures powers actions and sufferings a traiection from the vnderstanding part to the heart and an incorporation of the beleeuer into him Yet it is not to be denyed but that Luther and some other did teach that euen the wicked doe in a sort eat the flesh of Christ not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body much lesse teare rent or diuide it with their teeth or turne it into their substance but for that they may bee said in a sort to eate the flesh of Christ though vnprofitably and to their condemnation in that they truely receiue the body of Christ eating that outward substance of bread with which it is truely present though not locally and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther did not feare to tell him that hee and his doe not say that we eate the body of Christ corporally in such sort as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body which is not locally present but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily only in respect of the Sacramentall vnion attributing that to the body of Christ that properly agreeth to the bread with which the body is present These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius intitled Iudicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius and Sturmius By that which hath beene said we see there is no difference in iudgement between them who out of humane frailty are too much diuided in affection Luther vttered many thinges very passionately against Zuinglius and others conceauing that they made the Sacraments to be nothing but onely notes distinctiue seruing to put difference betweene Christians and such as are no Christians as a Monkes Cowle distinguisheth a Monke from him that is no Monke or empty signes without all presence of grace and exhibition of the thinges they signifie But if hee had fully vnderstood the meaning of them hee was so violently opposite vnto hee would not haue censured them so hardly as hee did If Master Higgons had euer read this Tract of Zanchius hee would not haue willed Mee to excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament The second part of the Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs come to the next part of this Chapter wherein hee vndertaketh to demonstrate that the thinges alledged by Mee to take away the offence and scandall of the seeming differences amongst Protestants are but false and empty pretenses The first thing that I alledge is that it is not to bee marvailed at that the Tigurins Gesnerus and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther or that some difference were amongst them seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome Ruffinus Augustine and others The second that the Papistes haue their differences also and those farre more materiall and vnreconcileable then any are amongst vs. The third that our differences grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine and that wee want not a certaine rule by the direction whereof all controuersies may be ended Against the first of these my allegations first hee opposeth a diuelish vntrueth affirming that Gesnerus and the Tigurins did not onely dislike the distempered passions of Luther but hate him with mortall hatred and accurse and execrate him as possessed of a legion of Diuells which neither Higgons into whom a lying spirit is entred nor any of those diuells hee is growne so familiar with shall euer proue So that there is no cause of trembling but at the fearefull iudgement of God against such as Master Higgons is that forsake the loue of
16. Of the errors that are and haue beene touching the vse of the discipline of the Church in punishing offenders 24. Chap. 17. Of the considerations moouing the Church to vse indulgence towards offenders 25. Chap. 18. Of their damnable pride who condemne all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline and imperfections of men are found 26. The second Booke is of the notes of the Châ—…h CHAP. 1. OF the nature of notes of difference and their seuerall kindes 29. Chap. 2. Of the diuers kindes of notes whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world 30. Chap. 3. Of Bellarmines reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by vs. 32. Chap. 4. Of Stapletons reasons against our notes of the Church 34. Chap. 5. Of their notes of the Church and first of Antiquity 37. Chap. 6. Of succession 39. Chap. 7. Of the third note assigned by them which is Vnity 40. Chap. 8. Of Vniuersality 41. Chap. 9. Of the name and title of Catholike 42. The third Booke sheweth which is the true Church demonstrated by those notes CHAP. 1. OF the diuision of the Christian World into the Westerne or Latine Church and the Orientall or East Church 47. Chap. 2. Of the harsh and vnaduised censure of the Romanists condemning all the Orientall Churches as Schismatic all and hereticall 75. Chap. 3. Of the nature of heresie of the diuerse kindes of things wherein men erre and what pertinacie it is that maketh an hereticke 76. Chap. 4. Of those things which euery one is bound expresly to know and beleeue and wherein no man canne erre without note of heresie 77. Chap. 5. Of the nature of Schisme and the kindes of it and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece c. are hereticall or in damnable Schisme 80. Chap. 6. Of the Latine Church that it continued the true Church of God euen till our time and that the errours we condemne were not the doctrines of that Church 81. Chap. 7. Of the seuerall points of difference betweene vs and our aduersaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church 83. Chap. 8. Of the true Church which and where it was befâ—… Luthers time 84. Chap. 9. Of an Apostasie of some in the Church 86. Chap. 10. Of their errour who say nothing can be amisse in the Church either in respect of doctrine or discipline 89. Chap. 11. Of the causes of the manifold confusions and euils formerly found in the Church ibid. Chap. 12. Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church and that the alteration which hath beene is a reformation 91. Chap. 13. Of the first reason brought to prooue that the Church of Rome holdeth the faith first deliuered because the precise time wherein errors began in it cannot be noted 93. Chap. 14. Of diuers particular errours which haue beene in the Church whose first author cannot be named 94. Chap. 15. Of the second reason brought to prooue that they hold the auncient faith because our men dissenting from them confesse they dissent from the Fathers where sundry instances are examined 96. Chap. 16. Of Limbus Patrum concupiscence and satisfaction touching which Caluin is falsely charged to confesse that he dissenteth from the Fathers 99. Chap. 17. Of Prayer for the dead and Merit 101. Chap. 18. Of the Fathers strictnesse in admitting men into the Ministery of single life and of their seuerity in the discipline of repentance 103. Chap. 19. Of the Lent Fast of Lay-mens Baptisme and of the sacrifice of the Masse 106. Chap. 20. Of the inuocation and adoration of Saints touching which the Century writers are wrongfully charged to dissent from the Fathers 109. Chap. 21. Of Martyrdome and the excessiue praises thereof found in the Fathers 114. Chap. 22. Wherein is examined their proofe of the antiquity of their Doctrine taken from a false supposall that our doctrine is nothing else but heresie long since condemned 115. Chap. 23. Of the heresie of Florinus making God the author of sinne falsely imputed to Caluine and others 117. Chap. 24. Of the heresies of Origen touching the Image of God and touching hell falsely imputed to Caluin 133. Chap. 25. Of the heresie of the Peputians making women Priests 134. Chap. 26. Of the supposed heresie of Proclus and the Messalians touching concupiscence in the regenerate 135. Chap. 27. Of the heresies of Nouatus Sabellius and the Manichees 139. Chap. 28. Of the heresies of the Donatists 141. Chap. 29. Of the heresies of Arrius and Aerius 142. Chap. 30. Of the heresies of Iouinian 143. Chap. 31. Of the heresies of Vigilantius 146. Chap. 32. Of the heresie of Pelagius touching originall sinne and the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes 147. Chap. 33. Of the heresie of Nestorius falsely imputed to Beza and others 149. Chap. 34. Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament and how our men deny that to be the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on 150. Chap. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany 151. Chap. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa impugning the adoration of Images 152. Chap. 37. Of the error of the Lampetians touching vowes 153. Chap. 38. Of the heresie of certaine touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ communicated to vs in the Sacrament ibid. Chap. 39. Of succession and the exceptions of the aduersaries against vs in respect of the supposed want of it 154. Chap. 40. Of succession and the proofe of the trueth of their doctrine by it 159. Chap. 41. Of vnity the kinds of it and that communion with the Romane Bishoppe is not alwaies a note of true and Catholike profession 160. Chap. 42. That nothing can be concluded for them or against vs from the note of Vnity or diuision opposite vnto it 164. Chap. 43. Of Vniuersality 169. Chap. 44. Of the Sanctity of doctrine and the supposed absurdities of our profession 170. Chap. 45. Of the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities of Romish religion 172. Chap. 46. Of the efficacie of the Churches doctrine 174. Chap. 47. Of the Protestants pretended confession that the Romane Church is the true Church of God ibid. Chap. 48. Of Miracles confirming the Romane faith 175. Chap. 49. Of Propheticall prediction 177. Chap. 50. Of the felicity of them that professe the trueth 178. Chap. 51. Of the miserable ends of the enemies of the truth ibid. Chap. 52. Of the Sanctitie of the liues of them that are of the Church 179. An Appendix to the third booke wherein it is proued that the Latine Church was and continued a true orthodoxe and protestant Church and that the maintainers of Romish errors were onely a faction in the same at the time of Luthers appearing AN answere to M. Brerelyes obiection concerning the masse publiquely vsed in all Churches at Luthers appearing pag. 185. Chap. 1. Of the canon of the Scriptures 224.
nature that by violence and the vniust courses holden by wicked men wee may be hindred from it without any fault of ours If the sentence of excommunication be iust yet it doth not cut the excommunicate off from the mysticall body of Christ but doth presuppose that they haue already cut off themselues or that if this sentence being duely and aduisedly pronounced make th◅ not relent but that still they hold out against it they will cut off themselues and depriue themselues of all inward grace and vertue From the visible Church of Christ it doth not wholly cut them off for they may and often doe retaine the entire profession of sauing trueth together with the Character of Baptisme which is the marke of Christianitie and so farre forth notwithstanding their disobedience still acknowledge them to be their lawfull pastours and guides by whose sentence they are excommunicate that they would rather endure and suffer any thing thē schismatically ioyne themselues to any other communion It doth therefore onely cut them off from communicating with the Church in the performance of holy duties and depriue them of those comforts which by communicating in the sacraments c. they might haue enioyed This excōmunicatiō is of two sorts the greater and the lesser The greater putteth the excōmunicate frō the sacrament of the Lords body blood depriueth them of all that cōfort and strength of grace which from it they might receiue it denieth to thē the benefit of the Churches publick prayers so leaueth thē to thēselues as forelorn miserable wretches without that assistāce presence protection which frō God she obtaineth for her obedient children Whence it is that they are said to be deliuered vnto Sathan because they are left naked void of all meanes to make resistance vnto his will pleasure as if this were not enough they are denied that solace which they might finde in the company and conversation of the people of God who now doe no lesse flye from them than in olde time they did from the Lepers who cryed I am vncleane I am vncleane The lesser excommunication excludeth onely from the Sacramentall pledges and assurances of Gods loue which when it is pronounced against them that stubbornely stand out and will not yeeld themselues to the Churches direction disposition is properly named excommunication but when it is pronounced against them that yeeld when they haue offended and seeke the blessed remedies of the euils they haue committed it is not so properly named excommunication but it is an act of the discipline of repentance and of that power and authority which Christ left vnto his Church whereby shee imposeth and prescribeth to her obedient children when they haue offended such courses of penitency whereby they may obtaine remission of their sinnes and recouer the former estate from which they are fallen CHAP. 16. Of the errours that are and haue beene touching the vse of the discipline of the Church in punishing offenders TOuching this discipline of repentance and power of the Church in ordering offenders and the vse thereof there are and haue beene sundry both errours and heresies The first of the Pelagians in former times the Anabaptists in our times who for euery the least imperfectiō cast men out of their societies denying that any are or can be in or of the Church in whom the least imperfection is found Which if it were true there should be no Church in the world all men being subject to sinne and sinfull imperfection that either are or haue beene For it is a vaine dispute of the Pelagians whether a man may be without sinne or not whereof see that which Augustine and Hierom haue written against the madnesse and folly of those men For confirmation of their errour touching absolute perfection they alleage that of the Canticles Thou art all faire my Loue and there is no spot in thee And that of the Apostle to the Ephesians that Christ gaue himselfe for his Church that he might make it to himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinkle but that it should be holy and without blame For answere wherevnto first we must remember that which formerly was obserued to wit that sundry glorious titles are giuen to the Church which agree not to the whole totally considered but to some parts onely so it is said to be faire glorious and without spot or wrinkle not for that all or the most part of them that are of the Church are so but because the best and principall parts are so and for that the end intent and purpose of the gift of grace giuen to the Church is to make all to be so if the fault be not in themselues Secondly we must obserue that there is a double perfection purity and beauty of the Church without spot or wrinkle to wit absolute and according to the state of this life The first is not found in any among the sonnes of men while they are clothed with the body of death And therefore if we speake of that absolute purity and perfection the Church is said to be pure all faire and to haue no spot or wrinkle not for that actually and presently it is so but for that it is prepared to be so hereafter as Augustine fitly ◅teth The second kinde of purity which is not absolute but according to the state of this life consisteth herein that all sinnes are avoyded or repented of and in Christ forgiuen and his righteousnesse imputed In this sense the Church is now presently pure and vndefiled and yet not free from all sinfull imperfection as the Pelagians and Anabaptists vainely and fondly imagine contrary to all experience and the wordes of the Apostle If wee say wee haue no sin we deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. The second errour touching the power of the Church in the ordering of sinners and the vse thereof was that of the Novatians who refused to reconcile and restore to the Churches peace such as grievously offended but left them to the iudgment of God without all that comfort which the sacraments of grace might yeeld vnto them and if any fell in time of persecution and denied the faith how great and vnfained soever their repentance seemed to bee they suffered them not to haue any place in the Church of God The third of certaine of whom Cyprian speaketh that would not reconcile nor restore to the Churches peace such as foradultery were cast out The fourth of the Donatistes who would not receiue into the lap bosome of the Church such as hauing in time of persecution to saue their owne liues deliuered the bookes and other holy things into the hands of the persecutors did afterwards repent of that they had done and with teares of repentant greefe seeke to recouer their former standing in the Church of God againe yea they proceeded so farre in this their violent and
himselfe to the Church of Rome Which hee might not haue beene suffered to doe if hee had erred in the article of the incarnation These Nestorians inhabite though mixed with Mahumetanes and Infidels a great part of the Orient For besides the countries of Babylon Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia and Media where very many of them are found they are scattered in the East Northerly to Cataia and Southerly to India So that in the histories wee finde mention of them and no other sort of Christians in sundry regions of Tartary These haue a Patriarch residing in Muzall on the riuer Tigris in Mesopotamia This Muzall either is the citie of Seleucia so honoured in times past that the government of those parts was committed to the Bishop thereof with the name of a Catholicke and place of Session in Councells next the Patriarch of Hierusalem or if that were destroied the Patriarchall seat was thence translated to Muzal In this citie though subject to Mahumetans the Iacobites haue three temples the Nestorians fifteene beeing esteemed to bee about forty thousand soules In the time of Iulius the third certaine of these Nestorians fell from the Bishop of Muzal and tooke for their head Simon Sulaca of the order of Saint Basil. Who submitted himselfe to the Bishop of Rome exhibited an orthodoxe confession of his faith and was by him confirmed bishop of Muzal in title name but the other held the place still So that when hee returned he was forced to abide in Caramit This Simon Sulaca made certaine Archbishops and Bishops and caused the memory of Nestorius to bee put out of their liturgies and in the end hee was slaine by the Turkes ministers But Abdesu of the same order succeeded him and after him Aatalla after him the Archbishop of Gelu and Salamas renouncing the obedience of the Bishop of Muzal was elected Patriarch and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome So that there were foure Patriarches successiuely following one another that held communion with the Church of Rome but no one of them euer possessed that citie but resided either in Caramit Serit or Zeinalbach in the confines of Persia. All these were vndoubtedly orthodoxe touching the article of the incarnation of the Sonne of God And Elias one amongst the Bishops that held the seat at Muzal desired to be joyned in communion with the Church of Rome sent his confession which was found to be orthodoxe and right so that they of that faction also seeme not to haue differed much in judgement touching any article of faith The Nestorians are subject to these two Patriarches to this day The Patriarch of Muzal hath vnder him 22 Bishops more then 600 territories in which there are at the least 22 rich and flourishing cities and in euery of them 500 families in Muzal 1000 whereof euery one contayneth about fortie persons And other-lesser territories contayning about 200 or 300 families a piece and thirty monasteries In India also there are many families subject to this Patriarch by the name of Patriarch of Babylon to whom he was wont to assigne Bishops There were in India before the Portugals comming about some 15 or 16 thousand families About some thirtie yeares since their Archbishop fell from the Patriarch of Muzal or Babylon to the Bishop of Rome by the perswasion of the Portugals yet retayning the auncient religion which was permitted But his successor in another Synod holden at Diamper not farre from Maliapur by the Archbishop of Goa in the yeare 1599 receiued the religion of Rome also and suffered their liturgie so to bee altered as wee finde it in Bibliotheca patrum But let vs proceede to take a view of the particular poynts of their religion First all cleargie men amongst the Chaldeans and also all lay men that excell in devotion receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood in their own hands vnder both kinds The rest receiue into their mouths the bodie of the Lord dipt into the blood They contract marriages within the degrees prohibited marrying in the second degree without dispensation Their Priests are marryed and after the death of the first wife haue libertie to marry the second or third time or oftner They minister the communion in leavened bread They vse not auricular confession nor confirmation They deny the supremacie of the Pope The specialties of the religion of the Indians or Christians of S. Thomas before they admitted any alteration were these First they distributed the sacraments in both kinds Secondly they vsed bread seasoned with salt and in steade of wine India affording none the juice of raisons softned one night in water and so pressed forth Thirdly they baptized not their children till they were forty dayes old except in danger of death Fourthly their priests were married but excluded from the second marriage Fifthly they had no images in their Churches but the crosse onely Sixtly they denyed the supremacie of the Pope From the Assyrians and Indians vniustly named Nestorians let vs passe to those Christiās that are supposed to be Monophysits as the Iacobites Armenians Cophti or Christians of Aegypt the Aethiopians or Abissens These beleeue that the nature of God and man were so vnited in the person of Christ that hee is truly God and truly man and that after the vnion they remaine distinct in their being of essence and property so that the diuinity is not of the same essence substance and nature with the humanity for the diuinity is infinite incomprehensible and increated and the humanity is finite and a created essence yet because they are vnited and conioyned in the vnity of the same person they say they are but one nature and will not acknowledge as wee do that there are two natures in Christ. That we may the better know what we are to thinke of these Christians differing thus from us I will first historically shew how this difference grew Secondly more largely refute their opinion And thirdly make it appeare that in respect of this difference they are not to be reiected as heritickes There liued at Constantinople a certaine man whose name was Eutiches a priest and an abbat This Eutiches in opposition to Nestorius who divided the person of Christ proceeded so farre that he confounded the natures imagining a conversion of the divinity into the humanity or of the humanity into the divinity or a kind of mixtion of them This Eutiches was well acquainted with Eusebius Bish. of Dorilaeum who vnderstanding by conference with him that he was fallen into such a damnable haerisie made the matter knowne to Flauianus the B. of Constantinople wishing him to call Eutiches vnto him and sharply to rebuke him least the faith might be indangered Flavianus assoone as he vnderstoode thus much called together 30 of his Bish. and in their presence asked of Eutiches whether he did beleiue that Christs body is of the same substance with ours He answered he had never said so hitherto but would seing they would haue it
And euen to this day they account their chiefe Bishop Patriarch of Antioch calling him alwayes Ignatius And to him the Metropolitan of Hierusalem whom the Iacobites call the fifth Patriarch is subject As aunciently the Bishops of Hierusalem were before the Councell of Chalcedon Which tooke from Antioch the 3 Provinces of Palestina and assigned them to the Bishop of Hierusalem for his Patriarchicall jurisdiction Besides the Bishop of Hierusalem who acknowledgeth him for his Superiour he hath vnder him 7 Archbishops with many Bishops Let vs therefore take a view of their Religion Touching the 2 natures in Christ they beleeue as I haue already deliuered The other particulars of their Religion are these First they confesse their sinnes to God onely and not to the Priest or but very seldome so that many communicate without confession Secondly they admit not Purgatory nor prayers for the dead Thirdly their Priests are married Fourthly they consecrate the Eucharist in vnleavened bread Fifthly they minister the Eucharist in both kindes Sixthly they vse circumcision euen of both sexes Seuenthly they signe their children before Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse imprinted with a burning iron some in the arme some in the forehead that they may be knowne to be Christians and that if euer they fall away they may by this marke be knowne to be Apostataes Hence grew the false report that they baptized with fire Eightly they adde to the trisagium this Appendix qui crucifixus est pro nobis And heereupon are charged to attribute the passion of death to the Divinity and consequently to the whole Trinity which is made more probable because they acknowledge but one nature in Christ. Touching this Hymne it is to be noted that in the time of Theodosius the Emperour there was a most feareful Earthquake which specially appeared in Constantinople where the wall with 57 towres fell down so that the people were forced to goe out of the City and to abide in the fields to avoide the danger of the ruines While they were crying Curie eleeson a childe was suddenly taken vp into the aire and vpon the prayers of the godly let downe againe to the ground without any hurt who when hee was come downe told them he had heard a Quire of Angels singing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Willing them so to sing that the Earth-quake might 〈◊〉 When Proclus the Bishop heard this he commanded the whole Congregation so to sing and the Earth-quake ceased and immediatly the childe died Hâ—…vpon Theodosius the Emperour commaunded this Hymne to be sung in all Christian Churches throughout the world So that it grew to be in great request Petrus Gnapheus Bishop of Antioch added to this Hymne qui crucifixus est pro nobis and was bitterly reproued by many Bishops for so doing Ephraim Bishop of Antioch finding that certaine were divided from the communion of other Christians in respect of this addition telleth them that they of the East vnderstand this Hymne of Christ and so sinne not in adding qui crucifixus est pro nobis But they that inhabit Constantinople the Nestorian parts vnderstand it of the Trinity therefore endure not this addition because it is impious to attribute the passioÌ„ of death to the blessed Trinity The Vicar of the Patriarch of the Iacobites being confer'd with by some Westerne Christians about this addition told theÌ„ that they vnderstand this Hymne of Christ so apply the passion of death on the crosse to Christ only not to the holy Trinity 9 They deny the supremacie of the Pope Next to these in order are the Armenians these inhabit Asia in that part which lieth between the mountains Taurus Caâ—…casus their country Armenia reacheth froÌ„ Cappadocia to the Caspian sea They are subject to 2 Patriarchs for the greater Armenia is subject to one the lesser to another The Patriarch of the greater Armenia resideth in the monastery Church of Eâ—…meazin neere the city Eruan in Persia. The families that are subject to this Patriarch are more then 150000 besides exceeding many monasteries Bishops Priests religious men DeacoÌ„s There are also certain primats or rather Patriarches of this Armenian nation in the remotest parts of Persia in Constantinople who though of right they should be subiect to this Patriarch yet sometimes acknowledge no such thing The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia resideth in the citty Sis in Cilicia named at this day Caramania This Patriarch hath vnder him 24 Prelates Archbishops and Bishops besides three hundred Priests and exceeding many Deacons and Clarkes liuing of almes and their owne labour and about twentie thousand families of Christians which liue in Citties villages and Castles of Syria and Cilicia and twenty monasteries in every of which there are an hundred religious persons These Armeniaes both the greater the lesser are lately taken by the Persians from the Turke and added to the Persian Empire Touching their religion Nicephorus attributeth vnto them sundry damnable haerisies concerning the Trinity and the incarnacion of Christ but most vntruly according to Genebrards observation before mentioned as may appeare by their owne confession extant sent by the mandate of the Catholique of Armenia to the Patriarch of Constantinople not 50 yeares agoe by which it is evident that they are Orthodox in these points The specialties of their religion are these First touching the two natures in Christ they are of the same opinion with the Iacobites formerly expressed Secondly they admitte only three generall Councells they reiect that of Chalcedon they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome they accurse Eutiches and honour Dioscorus Thirdly theyadde to the Trisagium as the Iacobites also doe qui crufixus est pro nobis but in the same sense as they doe and without any haereticall meaning Fourthly they affirme with the Graecians that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father only Fifthly they thinke the soules of the iust shall not inioy heauen happinesse till after the resurrection Sixthly they deny purgatory and pray not for the dead Seaventhly they deny marriage to be a Sacrament Eightly they deny the locall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament Ninthly they deny that the Sacraments giue grace Tenthly they thinke that the Eucharist is to be giuen to all that are baptized together with their baptisme Eleauenthly they mingle not water with wine in the holy Eucharist Twelfthly they condemne the adoration of images Thirteenthly they admitte married priests and as some say admitte none to be saecular priests except they be married and yet exclude the second marriage Fourteenthly they fast Wednesday and Friday and on those daies eate neither oile nor fish neither do they drinke wine and they abstaine in like sort the whole lent saue that on Saturday and Sunday they eate butter cheese egges Fifteenthly in the Lent they neuer consecrate but on Saturday and Sunday what dayes they fast not 16 Out of Lent they eate flesh on all Saturdaies throughout
daies For behold there are many that peruert the holy Scriptures and deny the sayings of the holy Fathers reiecte the Canons of the Church and ciuill constitutions of the Emperours which molest persecute bring into bondage and without mercy torment and afflict euen vnto death them that defend the trueth And that I may conclude many things in fewe words with harlâ—…ttes foreheades and execrable boldnesse doe endeavour to subuert imperiall and regall power and to ouerthrow all lawes both of GOD and man Neither are these young men or vnlearned but they are the elders of the people High Priests Scribes Pharises and Doctours of the Law as they were that crucified Christ so that wee may rightly say of our times that which Daniel long since pronounced in his 13 Chapter Iniquity is gone out from Babylon from the elders and iudges which seemed to governe and rule the people For many that should bee pillars in the Church of God and defend the truth euen vnto bloud doe cast themselues headlong into the pit of heresies Thus spake he in his time of the corrupt 〈◊〉 of the Church wherein so damnable a faction prevailed daungerously pervâ—…ting all things that in the end he submitteth all his writings to the judgment correction of the true and Catholicke Church but not of the Church of malignant miscreants heretickes schismatickes and their favourers CHAP. 9. Of an Apostasie of some in the Church THus then we thinke with Lira that as there was an Apostasie or revolt of many kingdomes from the Romane Empire and of many Churches from the communion of the Romane Church so there hath beene an Apostasie from the Catholick faith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true faith but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the faith according to the saying of our Sauiour a when the time of Antichrist draweth on iniquity shall abound and the charity of many shall waxe cold and that 1 Timoth. 4 In the last times some shall depart from the faith attending to spirits of errour and 2 Timoth. 3. In the last dayes there shall bee perilous times men shall be louers of themselues men of corrupt mindes reprobâ—…e concerning the faith This hee speaketh of an Apostasie in the middest of the Church it selfe answerably to that of â— Nazianzen who saith that as when one taketh water into his hand not onely that which hee taketh not vp but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage betweene his fingers is divided and separated from that which he holdeth inclosed in his hand so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholicke verity but they also that seeme to bee her best and greatest friends are sometimes divided one from another There is no cause then why it should seeme so strange to our Adversaries that our Divines affirme there hath beene an Apostasie from the Faith not of the whole Church but of many in the Church dangerously erring and adulterating the Doctrine of Faith deliuered by Christ and his blessed Apostles And that some say this Apostasie began sooner some later For if wee speake of those grossest illusions wherewith men were abused in these latter ages surely that degree of Apostasie did not enter into the Church in former times For there was no thought in any Christian man liuing sixe hundred yeares agoe that the Pope could dispense the merits of the Saints and giue pardons that hee might depose Princes for supposed heresie that the Sacrament not receiued but elevated gazed on and adored is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead that Mary was conceiued without originall sinne that the people are to be partakers of the Sacrament but onely in one kinde and sundry other things of like nature But if we speake of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian Faith it is certaine it began long agoe euen in the first ages of the Church Of this sorte was the errour that the soules of the iust are in some part of hell till the last day as Tertullian Irenaeus and sundry other of the auncient did imagine that they see not God nor enjoy not heauens happines till the generall resurrection which was the opinion of many of the Fathers That all Catholicke Christians how wickedly soeuer they liue yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession shall in the end after great torments endured in the world to come be saued as it were by fire This was the errour of sundry of the auncient who durst not say as Origen that the Angels that fell shall in the end be restored nor as some other mollifying the hardnesse of Origens opinion that all men whether Christians or Infidells nor as a third sorte that all Christians how damnably soeuer erring in matter of faith shall in the end be saued but thought it most reasonable that all right beleeuing Christians should find mercy whatsoeuer their wickednesse were This opinion was so generall in Augustines time that very fearefully he opposed himselfe against it and not daring wholly to impugne that which he found to haue so great and reuerend authours he qualified it what he could and so doubtingly broached that opinion which gaue occasion to the Papists of their heresie touching Purgatory For saith he if they would onely haue vs thinke that the soules of men liuing wickedly heere in this World may through the goodnesse of God and the prayers of the liuing find some mitigation of their paines in hell or haue their punishments suspended and differred for a time yet so that they be confessed to be eternall I would not striue with them yea saith he it may be that men for some lighter sinnes and imperfections cleauing to them while they are here may finde pardon remission in the world to come and be saued as by fire which whether it be so or whether there be no other purging but in this life by the fire of tribulation he professeth he knoweth not nor dareth not pronounce Of this sorte was the opinion of a double resurrection the first of the good who should liue in all happinesse on the earth a thousand yeares before the wicked should be awaked out of the sleepe of death and another after the thousand yeares expired when the wicked also should rise and goe into euerlasting fire and the good into euerlasting life which they supposed to bee the second resurrection How generally this errour spread it selfe in the true Church they that haue but looked into the writings of the fathers and monuments of antiquitie cannot bee ignorant The opinioÌ„ of the necessity of infants receiuing the sacrament of the Lords body and blood as well as Baptisme did possesse the mindes of many in the Church for certaine hundreds of yeares as appeareth by that Augustine writeth of it in his time and Hugo de sancto victore so
of religion is changed such is the change from Paganisme to Christianity or from Christianity to Paganisme The second when the essence remaining the same the state is changed such was the change of Iudaisme into Christianity there being in the later new sacraments ceremonies and a new ministery that was not in the former and the performance of that which was but in expectation onely before The third is when not the whole essence and state of religion but some parts of it only are so changed that some impugning and denying those things which others alwayes did and doe hold most certaine the opposition is so great that there groweth an apparant separation betweene them the one sort refusing to communicate with the other As when the Arrians denied the Sonne of God to be coessentiall coequall and coeternall with his Father The fourth when men so bring in new opinions and obseruations into the Church that yet both they and other not led away in the same errour hold communion still In the three first kindes of mutation all those circumstances they speake of may be noted but not alwayes in the fourth Now the mutation in matters of faith and religion which hath beene in the Romane Church is of the fourth and last sorte For the errours thereof were so brought in that both they that were the authours of them and others that neuer fell into them were both of one communion as I will make it most cleare and euident in that which followeth And therefore it is most absurde to require vs to shew these circumstances they speake of Secondly for the better clearing of this matter wee must note that the aberration which hath beene in the Church of Rome from her auncient purity and simplicity consisteth in foure things First in certaine canons lawes and traditions euill and hurtfull from the beginning Secondly in the multitude of lawes and canons in respect of the number growing to be a burden Thirdly in that the state of things and conditions of men altering the same constitutions and ordinances become hurtfull that were formerly good or in that things instituted to one end are in processe of time applied to another or euill and dangerous opinions corrupting the vse of that which was not wholly to be misliked in the beginning are newly added Fourthly in errours in matter of faith Touching that aberration of the Church of Rome which consisteth in the bringing in of lawes canons and constitutions hurtfull from the beginning wee can note the beginning of it and assigne who were the authours of such lawes But when the lawes themselues are not euill but the number of lawes Canons and constitutions is a burden to the Church and the euill complayned of it is most foolish to vrge vs to shew the first authour thereof As likewise when lawes not euill in the beginning by alteration of times grow hurtfull or when things from one vse grow to another Hugo de sancto Victore noteth that the custome was to communicate little children in the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud which being in time ceased yet still they continued in his time to giue wine though not consecrated to children new baptized which hee confesseth to be a superstitious and foolish custome yet it is not possible to shew the beginning of it The aberration in the Church of Rome in matters of doctrine was in such things and so carried in the beginnings that the Authours of those new and false opinions were not disclaimed and noted as damnable heretickes as were those that erred in things most cleerely resolued before or that erred with such pertinacy that they diuided themselues from all that thought otherwise But the Authours of these errours and they that were free from them were notwithstanding these differences both of one communion And therefore the circumstances by them required in these mutations cannot bee shewed as it will easily appeare by these instances following CHAP. 14. Of diuers particular errours which haue beene in the Church whose first Authour cannot be named THe opinion of two resurrections of mens bodies the first of the good the second of the wicked there being betweene the one and the other a thousand yeares was an errour but the Authour of it is not knowen For I hope the Romanists will not say the Fathers learned it of any hereticke the first authour of it The opinion that the soules of the just are in hell and see not God till the generall resurrection was an errour but they cannot tell who was the first author of it The opinion that all Catholique Christians how wicked soeuer shall in the end be saued as by fire was an errour but the Author is not knowne The opinion that men are elelected for the foresight of some thing in themselues is an errour or else the doctrine of Augustine who was of that opinion sometimes but afterwards condemned it in himselfe and others The opinion that infants could not be saued vnlesse they were not onely baptized but did receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body was anerrour but the Author of it is not known The opinions that the bookes of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees and the like are Apocryphall and that they are Canonicall are contradictory and the one of them an errour in matter of Faith yet is not the Author of that errour knowne The innumerable contradictory opinions holden in the Church of Rome touching matters of Faith as that the Pope is Soueraigne temporall Lord of all the World and all Kings and Princes hold of him in fee and that he is not that he may depose Kings erring in Faith and persecuting the faithfull and that he may not that papally he cannot erre and that he may and sometimes doth and many other like must needes be errours on the one side or other yet is not the authour of those errours to be nominated It was doubtlesse in the confession of the adversaries the custome of the Westerne or Latine Church aswell as of the rest to communicate in both kindes when and where that custome of communicating the Lay-people only in one kinde began cannot be precisely noted It was the custome to impose penance first and after the performance of it to giue absolution now absolution is first giuen and then penance imposed to be performed afterwards when this alteration began it cannot be noted It was the generall opinion that Mary was conceiued in sinne it grew afterwardes to bee generally thought shee was not The first Author of this latter opinion cannot bee knowne nor of the former neither as I suppose The custome was to graunt Indulgences or Relaxations onely from injoyned penance the forme of these was afterwards altered I thinke it can hardly bee noted by whom c. The custome was on the dayes which they kept as Fasting-dayes not to eate till three a clocke in the afternoone or till the euen so that to dine and not to
gazed on and adored to driue away diuels to still tempests to stay the ouerflowing of waters to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires But that the body of Christ is present in and with the sanctified elements onely in reference to the vse appointed that is that men should be made partakers of it This participation according to the auncient vse was first and principally in the publike assembly secondly in the primitiue Church the maner of many was to receiue the Sacrament and not to be partakers of it presently but to carrie it home with them and to receiue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian and others doe report Thirdly the maner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death This reseruation was not generally obserued as may appeare by the Canon of Clemens prescribing that so much onely should be prouided for the outward matter of the Sacraments as might suffice the Communicants and that if any thing remained it should presently be receiued by the Clergie Neither could there be any place for or vse of reseruation where there was a daily Communion as in many places there was nor in any place for such reseruation as is vsed in the Church of Rome for weekes and moneths seeing there was generally in auncient times in all places twise a weeke or at least once euery weeke a Communion from whence they might bee supplied that were absent The Romanists consecrate euery day but make their reseruations from some solemne time of communicating as Easter or the like and this not only or principally for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood but for circumgestation ostentation and adoration to which end the Fathers neuer vsed it Neither is that which is thus vnto this purpose reserued the body of Christ as our Diuines doe most truely pronounce The maner of the primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body no longer than they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them But the Romanists at this day as the same Rhenanus fitly obserueth would thinke it a great and horrible impietie to doe that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised So then Caluine doth thinke that the Romish reseruation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ as the Papists foolishly fancie and yet I hope is in no heresie at all Neither doeth hee any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them are not the body of Christ but saith onely that there were long since great abuses in reseruation and greater in that euery one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the publike Minister in the Church and carry it home with him which I thinke this Cardinall will not denie if hee aduisedly bethinke himselfe CHAP. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany THe next heresie imputed vnto vs is Eutichianisme which is directly opposite and contrary to the former errour of Nestorius This hee chargeth first vpon Zuinck feldius whom wee reiect as a franticke seduced miscreant and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches Secondly vpon Brentius Iacobus Smidelinus and other learned Diuines of the German Churches The heresie of Eutiches was that as before so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ for that the nature of God was turned into man that there was a confusion of these natures Doe any of the Germane Diuines teach this blasphemous doctrine No sayth Bellarmine not directly and in precise tearmes but indirectly and by consequent they doe If wee demaund of him what that is which they teach whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred hee answereth the vbiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For sayth he vbiquity being an incommunicable property of God it cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the diuine and humane natures But he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite and limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally only in respect of the coniunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach That the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery-where in which sense they thinke it may truely bee said to be euery-where For the better clearing of this point we must remember that it is agreed vpon by all Catholike Divines that the humane nature of Christ hath two kindes of being the one naturall the other personall The first limited and finite the second infinite and incomprehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery-where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contained in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly bee said to be euery-where It were easie to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith in shew so opposite one to another and to stop the mouthes of our prattling adversaries who so greedily seeke out our verball seeming differences whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of vncertainties and contrarieties if this were a fit place But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmines calumniation and let vs proceed to examine the rest of his objections CHAP. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa impugning the adoration of Images THe next heresie hee imputeth vnto vs is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images the first authour of which impiety as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it was Zenaias Persa as Nicephorus reports But whatsoeuer the Iesuite thinke Nicephorus credite is not so good
that vpon his bare word wee should beleeue so shamelesse a lye For Augustine which was before this Persian in his booke De moribus Ecclesiae libro primo capite tricesimo quarto hath the same heresie as it pleaseth these heretikes to call it Nolite inquit consectari turbas imperitorum qui in ipsà verâ religione superstitiosi sunt Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores quos mores Ecclesia condemnat quotidiè corrigere studet And Gregory after the time of this supposed Persian doth condemne the adoration of Images And the Councell of Frankford likewise after his time as appeareth by Hincmarus and others Besides if Nicephorus follow the judgement of the Fathers of the second Nicene Councell hee meaneth nothing else by that adoration of Images which hee approoueth but the embracing kissing and reverent vsing of them like to the honour wee doe the Bookes of holy Scripture not that Religious worshippe which consisteth in spirit and trueth which the Papists yeelde to their Idoles And so there is as great difference of judgement betweene him and Bellarmine as betweene him and vs. That which Bellarmine addeth against Caluine and others touching the time that Images were first brought into the Church if this place did require the examination of it wee should finde him as notable a trifler therein as in all the rest CHAP. 37 Of the errour of the Lampetians touching vowes THe errour of the Lampetians was as Alphonsus à Castro supposeth that it is not lawfull for men to vowe and by vowing to lay a necessity vpon themselues of doing those things which freely and without any such tye might much better bee performed If they disliked simply all vowing wee doe not approue their opinion as may appeare by that which Kemnisius Zanchius and others haue written to this purpose and therefore wee are vniustly said to fauour their errour That which Bellarmine addeth for the strengthening of this his vniust imputation is a meere calumniation For Luther doth not say that a man should vow to do a thing as long as hee shall bee pleased and then to be free againe when hee shall dislike that which before hee resolued on but that all vowes should be made with limitation to bee so farre performed as humane frailty will permitte that it is better after a vow made to breake it to discend to the doing of that which is lawfull good though not carrying so great show of perfection as that which by vowe was promised than under the pretence of keeping it to liue in all dissolute wickednesse as the manner of the Popish votaries is whereupon the Fathers are cleare that marriage after a vow made of single life is lawfull and that it is better to marry than continuing single to liue lewdly and wantonly CHAP. 38. Of the heresie of certaine touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ communicated to vs in the Sacrament THe last heresie might well haue beene omitted For those heretikes condemned by Theodoret Ignatius and others denied the verity of Christs humane nature and thereupon condemned the Sacrament of his body and blood So that it was not the impugning of Popish Transubstantiation as Bellarmine idlely fancieth that was reprooued in them but the denying of the trueth of that body and blood which all true Christians doe know to bee mystically communicated to them in the Sacrament to their vnspeakeable comfort How then can we be charged with the heresie of these men seeing wee neither deny the verity of Christs humane nature nor make the Sacrament to be a naked figure or similitude only but acknowledge that it consisteth of two things the one earthly and the other heauenly and that the body of Christ is truely present in the Sacrament and communicated to vs though neither Capernaitically to be torne with the teeth nor popishly to bee swallowed and carried downe into the stomacke and belly Thus then wee see how fondly this Cardinall heretike hath indeuoured to prooue vs heretikes and to hold the old condemned heresies of those cursed Arch-heretikes whose frensies wee condemne much more than he and his fellowes doe So that he is so farre from demonstrating either our consent with condemned heretikes that were of old or their consent with the auncient Fathers and consequently the antiquity of their profession that contrarily all that are not blinded with partiality may easily see that the whole course of Popish doctrine is nothing but a confused mixture of errours and all that they write against vs nothing but meere calumniation slander CHAP. 39. Of Succession and the exceptions of the aduersaries against vs in respect of the supposed want of it THus then hauing taken a view of whatsoeuer they can or do alleage for proofe of the antiquity of their doctrine which is the first note of the Church assigned by them let vs come vnto the second which is Succession and see if they haue any better successe in it than in the former In what sense Succession may bee granted to bee a note of the true Church I haue shewed already let vs therefore see how and what our aduersaries conclude from thence against vs or for themselues By this note say they it is easie to prooue that the reformed Churches are not the true Churches of God Ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem saith Hierome against the Luciferians It can be no Church that hath no Ministery And Cyprian to the same purpose pronounceth that the Church is nothing els but Plebs episcopo adunata Thus therefore from these authorities they reason Where there is no ministery there is no Church But amongst the Protestants there is no Ministerie therefore no Church The Minor proposition or assumption of this argument wee deny which they endeuour to prooue in this sorte There is no lawfull calling to the worke of the Ministery amongst the Protestants therefore no Ministery The defects they suppose to bee in the calling of our Bishops and Ministers are two fold first for that they that ordained them in the beginning of this alteration of things in the state of the Church had no power so to doe Secondly for that no man may be ordained but into a voide place either wherein there neuer was any Pastour or Bishop before as in Churches in their first foundation or wherein there hauing beene their place is now voide by the death depriuation or voluntary relinquishment of them that possest it before that so they who are newly elected and ordained may succeede into the void roomes of such as went before them and not intrude vpon their charge wherevnto they are still iustly intituled Our Bishops and Pastours were ordayned and placed in the beginning of the reformation of religion where there were Bishops already in actuall possession These being the defects which they suppose to be in the calling of our Bishops Ministers let
thing and to bee but verball vpon mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men than any thing else Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference foūd touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall that Hosiander held no private opinion of Iustification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all But sayth Bellarmine your Churches are so torne and rent with dangerous diuisions that not onely one of you dissenteth from another but the same man often times from himselfe and herein giueth instance in Luther whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence Touching Luther we answere that he was a most worthy Diuine as the world had any in those times wherein he liued or in many ages before that for the clearing of sundry poynts of greatest moment in our Christian profession much obscured intangled before with the intricate disputes of the Schoolemen and Romish Sophisters as of the power of nature of free will grace iustification the difference of the Law and the Gospell faith and workes Christian libertie and the like all succeeding ages shall euer be bound to honour his happie memory In all these things hee was euer constant yea all these things he perfectly apprehended and to the great joy of many mens hearts deliuered both by word and writing before he departed from the Romish Synagogue and out of these and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers then was vsuall in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errours which at first hee discerned not That herein he proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approoue is not so strange a thing as our aduersaries would make it seeme to be Did not Augustine the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times write a whole booke of Retractations Doe we not carefully obserue what things he wrote when he was but a Presbyter and what when hee was made a Bishop what before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians and what afterwards Did hee not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternall life to the foresight of faith which afterward he disclaimed as a meere Pelagian conceit So that his aduersaries as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers but to himselfe also Did not Ambrose in his time complaine that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many things that should neede and require a second review Doth not their Angelicall Doctor in his Summe of Theologie correct and alter many things that he had written before Let not our aduersaries therefore insult vpon Luther for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first but let them rather consider of and yeeld to the reasonablenesse of the ◠request which in the preface of his workes hee maketh to all Christian and well minded readers to wit that they would reade his bookes and writings with iudgment and with much commisseration and remember that he was sometimes a Frier nourished in the errors of the Romish Church so that it was more painefull to him to forget those things hee had formerly ill learned than to learne anew that which is good But say they Luther himselfe witnesseth that contrariety and cotradiction is a note of falshood and therefore his writings being contradictory the later to the former his whole doctrine must needes be false euen in his owne iudgement Let them that thus reason against Luther know that his meaning is not that whosoeuer retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught is thereby conuinced of falshood and his whole doctrine prooued to bee erroneous but that those assertions that doe implie contradicton and contrarietie that stand wholly vpon doubtfull vncertaine perplexed disputes and so ouerthrow themselues doe thereby appeare to be false Of which nature are all the principall parts of the Romish doctrine For example Transubstantiation is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion and all Papists at this day do firmely hold and beleeue it yet it is demonstratiuely prooued by their owne best Diuines that such a totall conuersion or transubstantiation of the Sacramentall elements into the body bloud of Christ is impossible implieth in it sundry contradictions consequences of horrible impieties For is it not implyed in the nature of the transubstantiation or totall conuersion of one substance into another that the one must succeed the other in being and that the former must cease to be the later therevpon begin to be whence it will followe that the later of the two substances into which the conuersion is made was not nor had no being before Now vvhat greater blasphemie can there be than to thinke Christs body had no beeing till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation It is true that one substance may be changed into another as was Lots wife into a pillar of salt but that one substance should passe and be totally transubstantiated into another hauing the same beeing without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation that after it hath and nothing beeing new in it in respect of substance or beeing implieth a contradiction and therefore the sacramentall elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christs body bloud That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus of Transubstantiatio productiua and adductiua is the most childish folly that euer was For this is that he saith The substance of the sacramentall elements is annihilated and they returne into that nothing out of vvhich they vvere formerly taken and then Christs body commeth into the place where they vvere before Therefore the one substance may be sayd to be changed into the other If this reason be good when one man remooueth out of his place into which another vpon his remooue doth enter the former may be sayd to be transubstantiated into the later For as the former of the two supposed men goeth out of his place into some other vvhereupon the other succeedeth him not in being but in place so the sacramentall elements goe out of their place and returne to that nothing out of vvhich they vvere created and the body of Christ succeedeth them not in being vvhich it had the very same vvhile they vvere but in place ◠Neither can this supposed conuersion of the elements into the body of Christ be the cause of Christs being in the Sacrament but rather of
that so many of vs as shall receiue the sacred body and bloud of thy Sonne by partaking of this Altar may be filled with all benediction and grace thorough the same Christ our Lord Amen And after the communion they pray againe in this sort graunt Lord that we may receiue with a pure minde what we haue receiued with the mouth And againe Let this communion O Lord purge vs from sinne and make vs partakers of the heauenly remedie Whereupon Micrologus inferreth that they must not neglect to communicate that thinke to haue any benefit by these prayers These prayers remaine as witnesses of the olde obseruation Durandus saith that in the Primitiue Church all that were present at the celebration of the Masse were wont to communicate euery day and that to this purpose they did offer a great loafe that might suffice for the communicating of them all which custome saith he the Grecians are said to keepe still Afterwards when the multitude of beleeuers encreased and devotion decreased it was ordained that at least euery Sunday they should communicate In processe of time when this could not be kept there was a third constitution that at least thrice euery yeare each Christian man should communicate if not oftener In the end it was ordered that at the least at Easter euery one should come to the Sacrament and insteed of the daylie communicating the Priest gaue daylie the kisse of peace to the minister saying in some places take you the bond of peace and loue that you may be fit for these sacred mysteries which were words that were wont to be vsed when they vsed to salute one another before the cōmunion did import an ensuing cōmunion The antheme which is named post cōmunio is so named because it is sung after the cōmunicating or in signe that the cōmunion is past For in the Primitiue Church all the Faithfull did daylie communicate and presently after their cōmunicating this song was sung that it might appeare the people did giue thanks to God for the body blood of Christ which they had receiued Odo Cameracensis saith that in old times there was no masse celebrated without some assembly of such as might offer together with him that celebrateth partake with him of the sacrament Generally we may say saith Durandus that that is a lawfull masse at which are present the Priest such as answere vnto him such as offer communicat And Walafridus Strabo agreeth with him saying that the very forme of the prayers vsed in the masse shew so much where there is mention expresly made of such as offer communicate And the booke of Ecclesiasticall obseruations intituled Micrologus written 500 yeares since saith it is to bee knowne that according to the auncient Fathers onely the communicants were wont to bee present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries and that the catechumens penitents were all sent out as not being fit to cōmunicate Which the very forme of celebrating importeth in which the priest prayeth not for his own oblation cōmuniō alone but that of others also especially in the praier after the cōmunion he seemeth to pray only for the cōmunicants Neither can it properly be said to be a communion vnlesse diuerse doe partake of the same sacrifice Chrysostome writing vpon the Ephesians sayth that hee that standeth by and communicateth not is impudent and shamelesse And that not only they that sit downe at table but they that are present at this feast without their wedding garment are subiect to a fearefull iudgment For the master of the feast will not aske friend how durst thou sit downe but how durst thou come in not hauing thy wedding garment thou abidest thou singest the himme with the rest thou professest thy selfe worthy in that thou goest not out with the vnworthy how darest thou abide and not communicate They that are in the state of penitencie are commanded out if thou bee in thy sinnes how continuest thou if thou be vnworthy of the sacramentall participation thou art so also of the communion in the praiers For the spirit descendeth and commeth by them aswell as by the mysteries there proposed And surely how any can be present that are not fit at least in desire and in as much as in them is to communicate I know not In old time they communicated every day or so often that they might seeme to communicate every day and the holy canons debarre all such as did not communicate from hearing of the masse as it apeareth De consecr dist 2. can peract Caietan in 3am Aquinat q 80. art 12. Yet so did deuotion decay and abuses grow that in many places the whole people stayed and were present yet none but the Clergie alone communicated and afterwards none but the Deacon and subdeacon Whence it came that whereas the mysticall breade was wont to be broken into 3 parts whereof the first was for him that celebrated the 2◠for the Clergy and the 3◠for the people in time it was so ordered that a diuisiō being made into 3 parts he took the one to himselfe gaue the other two to the deacon and subdeacon and in some places did eate all himselfe Whatsoeuer the neglect or abuses were it is evident by the composition of the canon that the mysticall action in which the canon is vsed was publique that there were alwaies some present that offered the sacrifice of praise together with the priest participated of the sacrament as these words do clearely shew Quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem filii tui sumpserimus Item prosint nobis domini sacramenta quae sumpsimus And therefore Iohn Hofmeister a learned man expounding the prayers of the masse hath these words Res ipsa inquit clamat tam in Graecâ quà m in Latinâ Ecclesia non solum sacerdotē sacrificantem sed reliquos presbyteros diaconos nec non reliquam plebem aut saltem plebis aliquam partem communicasse quod quomodo cessauerit mirandum est vt bonus ille vsus in Ecclesiam revocetur laborandum that is The thing it selfe proclaimeth it that aswell in the Greeke as Latin Church not only the priest which sacrificeth but the other priests and deacons also yea and the people or at least some part of them did communicate which good custome how it grew out of vse I know not but surely we should labour to bring it in againe That it was not lawfull for the priest to celebrate without the Deacon who was to receiue the sacrament at his hand Cusanus sheweth by that which is in the missal Sumpsimus domini sacramēta we haue receiued the Sacraments of the Lord c. In the ◠Interim published by the Emperor Charles the fift in the assembly at Augusta in the 15 of May 1548 we find these words Atque hic expedierit cum verissimum
merit in that it augmenteth devotion enlargeth the apprehension of faith and is a more compleat full receiuing And againe The receiuing vnder both kindes which manner of receiuing the Lord deliuered is of more efficacy and complement And hee that receiueth the sacrament vnder the forme of bread onely doth not perfectly receiue the same in respect of sacramentall receiuing With him agree Albertus magnus Petrus de Palude Bonaventura and sundry other By all which it is evident that though they gaue way to the custome that grew in and began to prevaile in their time yet they signified and sufficiently expressed that in their opinion the communicating in both kindes as Christ at first did institute and the Church for a long time observed is fitte convenient compleat perfect of more efficacie and more cleere representation than the other vnder one kind alone And therefore many still retained the auncient manner of communicating after other had admitted receiued the new Aquinas sayth of his time that the communicating vnder one kinde alone was receiued in many Churches not in all Alexander of Hales sayth that lay men almost euery where communicated in one kinde Petrus de Palude sayth it was the custome in some Churches to giue the communion to the people in both kinds Durandus reporteth that it was the custome of some Churches in his time that the priest should consecrate such a quantity of wine that after hee had drunke of the same there might still some of the sacrament of Christs blood remaine in the chalice into which more wine not consecrated might be powred that the other communicants might partake of the blood of Christ. And then they began to dispute the question whether the wine that was put into the cup by contact of Christs blood became consecrated sacramentall or not But whether it did or not they resolued that all by this meanes did partake and drinke of the blood of Christ which was mingled with euery part of the wine newly powred into it After this some proceeded farther left none of the sacramentall or consecrated wine in the cuppe or chalice but powred meere wine into it that the communicants might wash their mouthes with it after they had receiued the body of Christ teaching them that they had beene sufficiently partakers of the blood of Christ in that they had receiued his body from which his blood cannot bee separated But Willielmus de Lauduno sayth that he that receiueth the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread receiueth the whole verity but not the whole sacrament and that therefore in many places they communicated in both kindes And wee shall finde that where they admitted the communion vnder one kinde yet they put a difference betweene the communicants and permitted some to communicate in both kindes Linwood sayth that in the lesser Churches onely they that consecrate receiue the blood of Christ vnder the forme of consecrated wine insinuating thereby that in the greater it was otherwise and that within the compasse of the same nation and people the greater and more honourable Churches had the communion in both kindes when the meaner had it but in one Yea wee shall finde that in the same particular Church some communicated in both kindes when other communicated but in one For Richardus de mediâ villâ and Petrus de Tarantasia afterwards named Innocentius the 4 t report that in their time not onely the Ministers of the Altar but the more principall of the people communicated in both kindes Thomas Waldensis provinciall of the Carmelites here in England saith of his time We permit the Pastours of the Churches to giue the Sacrament in both kindes to svch persons as are strong in faith and discreet as the Bishop of Rome doth vse to giue the communion to the deacon and other Ministers of the Altar and other excelling in faith or of high place and dignity as Doctours and Kings Or as the Churches of religious men and of great places doe still continue to giue the Sacrament to their brethren and such persons as are worthie of so great a thing And in another place he hath these words Neither doe we deny vnto all Lay men generally to drinke of the blood of Christ vnder the forme of wine neither doe wee generally and without distinction or difference graunt and yeeld it vnto all for wee know that by the custome of the Church it is left to the discretion of the greater Prelates to admit certaine of the Ministers of the Altar or certaine other illustrious persons amongst the people that are faithfull reverent and devout to the solemne communicating in both kindes Thus did he write more then a thousand and foure hundred yeares after Christ in the time of Pope Martin who was elected in the Councell of Constance and who as B. Lindan telleth vs went home from the Councell of Constance and ministred the communion to sundry both of the Clergie and Laity vnder both kindes So that the communion vnder both kindes continued after the Councell of Constance which as the same Lindan saith did not simply forbid the ministring of the Sacrament in both kindes but the teaching of the people that of necessitie it must be so ministred To this purpose see the 13th session of the Councell The Councell of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the vse of the communion in both kinds Cassander telleth vs that good credible authors do testifie that in France the whole cōmunion was ministred though not euery-where in ordinary Churches yet in Chappels euen a little before the memory of our fathers as also it is ministred to the French Kings to this day Caietan saith of his time that the Church of Rome almost all the Churches of the west had the cōmunion in one kind He saith not all but almost all for as it appeareth by the same Caietan the Cistercian monks in some places did cōmunicate vnder both kinds euen in his time their order as it may be thought being instituted while the communion vnder both kindes continued in generall observation For otherwise it is not to be thought that any Monasterie would haue presumed to renew an abolished custome So that we see that the Churches of this part of the world were neuer wholly depriued of the necessarie and comfortable vse of the Sacrament vnder both kindes And for those that were wee see by what degrees and in what sort not without complaining of the wrong done vnto them they were forced to giue way to the innovation by a prevailing faction Yet did they not cease to bee members of the true and orthodoxe Church that were thus wronged The Armenian in the Dialogues of Armachanus objecting the saying of Christ except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood hee can haue no life to prooue the necessitie of the Communion in both kindes
blood and the blood without the bodie and so a slaine and a crucified Christ if that naturall concomitance by reason whereof the one of them will not bee absent where the other becommeth present did not hinder their being asunder Thus then they say there is a true reall sacrificing of Christ in that as much as is on the part of the words pronounced and him that pronounceth them Christs bloud is againe powred out and hee consequently slaine This is the conceipt of Gregorius de Valentia and in this sorte hee imagineth Christ is daily newly sacrificed on the altar But besides that it is an impious thing for the priest to endeauour as much as in him lies to slay Christ and to powre out his bloud againe this proueth not a reall sacrificing of Christ but onely an indevour so to doe For his bloud is not powred out neither is hee slaine indeede So that as in the time of the old law if the priest reaching forth his hand to slay the beast that was brought to bee sacrificed had beene so hindred by something interposing it selfe that hee could not slay the same hee had offered no sacrifice but endeavoured onely so to doe so is it here Bellarmine therefore reiecteth this conceipt and hath another of his owne For hee sayth that Christ hath a two fold beeing the one naturall the other sacramentall The Iewes had him present amongst them visibly in his naturall being this beeing they destroyed and so killed and sacrificed him The Romish Priests haue him not so present neither can they destroy his naturall beeing and so kill him but they haue him present in a sacramentall presence and in a sacramentall being this beeing they destroy For consuming the accidents of bread and wine which are there left without substance and with which hee is present they make his presence there to cease and so cause him to loose that beeing which formerly hee there had Thus doe they suppose that they newly sacrifice Christ and destroy him in that being wherein hee is present with them And the Priests eating is not for refection but for consumption that hee may destroy Christ in that beeing wherein hee is present as the fire on the altar was wont to consume and destroy the bodies of those beasts that were put into it But first it is impious to thinke of destroying CHRIST in any sort For though it bee true that in sacrificing of Christ on the altar of the crosse the destroying and killing of him was implyed and this his death was the life of the world yet all that concurred to the killing of him as the Iewes the Roman souldiers Pilate and Iudas sinned damnably and soe had done though they had shed his bloud with an intention and desire that by it the world might be redeemed Soe in like sort let the Romish priestes haue what intention they will it is hellish and damnable once to thinke of the destroying of Christ in any sort And besides if it were lawfull for them so to doe yet all that they doe or can doe is not sufficient to make good a reall sacrificing of CHRIST Because all they doe or can doe is noe destroying of his beeing but onely of his being somewhere that is in the Sacrament For as if the things which were brought to be sacrificed in the time of the Law had beene only remoued out of some place into which they were brought or onely caused to cease to bee where they were and not what they were they could not truly haue beene sayd to haue beene sacrificed no more can it be truly said that Christ is really sacrificed in that the priests consuming the accidents of bread and wine vnder which they supposed him to be make him cease to be there any longer Hauing thus in their erring imaginations framed to themselues a reall sacrificing of Christ they beginne to dispute of the force and efficacie of it affirming that this reall offering and sacrificing of CHRIST by the priest is propitiatorie in that it pacifieth God and procureth and obtaineth grace and the gift of repentance that the sinner may come to the sacrament and so be iustified satisfactorie in that it applyeth the satisfaction of Christ and procureth remission of temporall punishments to them that by faith and repentance are alreadie free from the guilt of eternall condemnation meritorious because it obtaineth that grace whereby wee may merit and impetratory in that it obtaineth for vs and procureth to vs all desired good This force and efficacie they say it hath ex opere operato that is the verie offering and sacrificing of Christ in sort before expressed of it selfe hath force and power to obtaine and procure grace remission of sinnes and the like for all them for whom such offering is made if there bee no hinderance or impediment in themselues And that God hath tyed himselfe by promise to conferre such gifts and worke such effects soe often as the body and bloud of his sonne shall bee thus offered And farther they adde that it conferreth good and remoueth euill not infinitely but in a stinted and limited sort Nor in that limited sort equally in respect of all but in proportionable sort as the intendment of the Church is to apply this sacrifice more or lesse to the procuring of more or lesse And that therefore the benefitte that this sacrifice procureth is in one degree communicated to all faithfull ones liuing and dead in another to such as by the Churches appointment are specially named as the Pope King and Bishoppe or the like in another to them that procure the offering of this sacrifice in another to them that are present and stand by in another to them that minister and attend in another to the priest that sacrificeth and in another to whomsoeuer it pleaseth the priest to impart and communicate the benefitte and effect of this sacrifice For as Gregorius de Valentia alleadgeth out of â— Scotus it is to be thought that the priest that is the minister of this sacrifice may apply to whom hee will not only that which by worth of his personall merit in the religious performing of this seruice hee may deserue but some part also of that effect which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and that God hath committed vnto him the effect which it hath in this kinde in some degree and sort to bee dispensed by him to whom hee thinketh good in recompence of his seruice And further they resolue that those effects which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and are by the intendment of the Church communicated in different sort and degree to those diuers sorts of men before specified are equally communicated to each of those sorts according to their seuerall differences whether the sacrifice be offered for more or fewer As they that procure Masse to be said for them whether they bee more or fewer shall haue like effects wrought in them But that portion of this
efficacie force and power of working gratious effects that is committed to the disposition and distribution of the Priest is so limited that accordingly as he intendeth good to more or fewer he procureth more or lesse vnto them Heere wee see a goodly frame of building raised but it hath an ill foundation for it is most absurd to say that the very offering of Christs body and bloud ex opere operato and of it selfe should haue force to obtaine any thing at Gods hand or to procuâ—…e any good vnto vs. For there is no offering that can haue any acceptation vnlesse it bee offered by an accepted offerer according to that in the 4â— of Genâ—…sis God had respect to Abel and to his offering first to Abel and then to his offering and that in the 21th of Luke where Christ saith this poore widdow hath cast in more into the treasurie then any of the rest because shee cast it in out of a larger more free better and more accepted will And heereupon Saint Gregory in his Homilie on that of Mathew 4. Iesus walking c. saith non pensat Deus quantum in eius sacrificio deferatur sed ex quanto that is God doth not so much weigh and consider how much or how good that is which is presented to him in sacrifice as out of how great and good affection it is presented And therefore if a Iew had offered Christ vnto his father willing so to bee offered or not willing this oblation had not beene so acceptable as when hee offered himselfe nay it had not beene accepted at all according to that in Ecclesiasticus Hee that offereth sacrifice out of the substance of the poore is as hee that slayeth and sacrificeth the sonne in the sight of his father And Bellarmine saith well to the same purpose that though the thing offered bee acceptable of it selfe yet the oblation is not acceptable vnlesse the offerer be accepted which is especially true in respect of God whose all things are and who needeth nothing So that in this supposed sacrifice the worthinesse and acceptation of the offerer is principally to bee considered for it is not so much the worth of the thing offered as the esteeme the offerer hath of it and his good affection in offering it that God respecteth Who therefore is the offerer of this their supposed sacrifice They will say Christ is the supreme and the Priest the inferiour and subordinate and that therefore whatsoeuer the condition of the Priest bee the sacrifice is accepted for the principall offerers sake But this is nothing for though Christ bee offered on the Altar as they imagine yet hee doth not offer himselfe immediately For then this offering would bee equivalent to that former on the Crosse which yet they will not acknowledge And besides that of the Apostle should be found false and vntrue Heb. 9. that hee doth not often offer himselfe Neither can it be saide that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest and so giueth price and worth to the offering For if it be said that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest either it is because hee appointeth authoriseth and encourageth the Priest to make this offering and this will giue no more value and worth to the offering then the immediate offerer hath as wee see it was in the offerings of the Priest vnder the Law or else in that the Priest doth this in his name as a Legate presents a thing to a forraine Prince in the name of the King and this cannot bee for whatsoeuer a legat may doe in the name person of his king the king may doe in his owne person if it please him but Christ can no more offer himselfe in his owne person therefore this is not to be admitted Wherefore passing by this idle phancie wee shall finde that the ofâ—…erer is the priest and so many as doe procure or desire the doing of the same and that therefore the whole Church in a sort may be said to offer this sacrifice For though it be offered ministerio sacerdotis by the ministery of the Priest yet it is offered voto ecclesiae out of the devotion desire of the Church in which there are ever some found that are acceptable vnto God and therefore the offerer of this sacrifice is euer acceptable and according to the merit worthinesse of this offerer the sacrifice here offered findeth acceptation So then these men imagine that there is a reall externall sacrifice in the Church which they daily offer vnto God that it worketh great effects of grace that Christ is offered in it but that the acceptation of it is not wholy nor principally from the dignity of the thing offered but from the merit of the offerer This is the present doctrine of the Roman Church but this was not the doctrine of the Church at the time of Luthers appearing for the best principall men that then liued taught peremptorily that Christ is not newly offered any otherwise then in that hee is offered to the view of God nor any otherwise sacrificed then in that his sacrifice on the crosse is commemorated represented The things that are offered in the sacrament are two sayth the authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion published in the provinciall councell of Colen the true body of Christ with all his merits his mysticall body with all the gifts which it hath receiued of God In that therefore the Church doth offer the true body blood of Christ to God the father it is meerely a representatiue sacrifice all that is done is but the commemorating representing of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse But in that it dedicateth itselfe which is the mysticall body of Christ vnto God it is a true but a spirituall sacrifice that is an eucharisticall sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing of obedience due vnto God Christ therefore is offered sacrificed on the altar but sacramentally mystically in that in the sacrament there is a commemoration remembrance of that which was once done Christ is not often slaine which once to thinke were abominable but that which was once done is represented that wee might not forget the benefit bestowed on vs but rather be so stirred vp moued by this sacrament as if wee saw the Lord Iesus hanging vpon the crosse The passion of the Lord sayth Cyprian is the sacrifice that wee offer to God that is that wee offer to the view of God and represent vnto him Neither is it to be marvailed at that we offer the true body of Christ to reviue the memory of the former sacrifice and to represent it vnto God seeing the son of God was giuen vnto vs that wee might oppose him to the wrath of God as a reconciler and that distrusting our owne strength wee might represent to the father this most potent sacrifice Cum defecerit sayth Bernard virtus mea non conturbor
I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur nihil habet incommodi superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos in se deriuari putabant tametsi illi nullam viuam fidem adferrent nullam pietatem adhiberent nulla communione vel precum seu orationis sacrificio assensum praeberent quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae diuinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put antes etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent That is If the canon of the Masse bee vnderstood in this sense which wee haue expressed there is no euill in it so that men haue no superstitious conceipt of things for there were some who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament supposed that vertue might be deriued vnto them by the sole externe action of the priest although they brought no liuely faith no piety nor gaue any consent to the sacrifice by any communion so much as of prayer of which sort they were who hauing no consideration of their owne horrible impieties evills committed by them persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably presumed to be present at this most holy action and put themselues in a sort into it perswading themselues that the masse by the vertue of the externe worke of the priest alone would doe them good though they brought no motions affections or desires of a good mind with them Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited When the priest sayth hee lifteth vp the eucharist let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted vp to the crosse offered himselfe to God a sacrifice for vs. Let them thinke how bitter the torments were that hee sustained let them know that mens sins were the cause of such his sufferings let them greiue as it is fitte they should for them and let them shew by all meanes that they hate them And because by his precious death hee hath so fully satisfied for all sinnes that there are none that are not abolished let them with good assurance considence goe vnto the throne of grace and whereas wee haue no merit of our owne let them plead that of Christ let them present that his body that did hang on the crosse and his bloud which was shed for the remission of our sinnes to God the Father and let them humbly beseech him to turne away his face from their sinnes and to looke vpon the face of his son Christ who bare our infirmities to looke vpon his face for his merit to remit their sinnes and to graunt that they may deriue vnto themselues all that fruite which that sacrifice of the crosse that is represented on the altar brought to the world Thus he sayth the people were taught by our forefathers and this hee sayth is enough for them to know Notwithstanding hee sheweth that Michael Bishop of Merspurge a man learned godly and truely catholique published certaine sermons touching the sacrifice of the massâ—… which hee wisheth to bee in the hands of all men in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned that I haue already deliuered And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincolne in his sermons vpon the seauen sacraments his words are these Christ in heaven and wee his mysticall body on earth doe but one thing for Christ being a Priest for euermore after his passion and resurrection entred into heauen and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for vs offering himselfe for vs to pacifie the anger of God against vs and representing his passion and all that he suffered for vs that we might be reconciled to God by him euen so the Church our mother being carefull for vs her children that haue offended our father in heauen vseth continually by her publique minister to pray to offer vnto God the body bloud of her husband Christ representing renewing his passion and death before God that wee thereby might bee renewed in grace and receiue life perfection and saluation and after the same sort the holy Angels of God in the time of this our sacrifice do assist the priest and stand about the host thinking that the meetest time to shew their charitie towards vs and therefore holding forth the body of Christ praye for mankind as saying thus Lord wee pray for them whom thou hast so loued that for their saluation thou hast suffered death spent thy life vpon the crosse we make supplication for them for whom thou hast shed this thy bloud we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body In that houre when Christs death is renewed in mysterie his most fearefull and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God then sitteth the King on his Mercie-seat enclined to giue and forgiue whatsoeuer is demaunded and asked of him in humble manner In the presence of this body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ the teares of a meeke and humble man neuer beg pardoÌ„ in vain nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is neuer put back but hath his lawfull desires granted giuen By resorting to this sacrifice of the masse we evidently declare protest before God the whole world that we put our singular only trust of grace saluation in Christ our Lord for the merits of his death his passion not for the worthinesse of any good worke that we haue done or can doe that we make his passion our only refuge For when wisedome faileth which onely commeth by the doctrine of Christ when righteousnesse lacketh which onely is gotten by the mercie of Christ when vertue ceaseth which onely is receiued from him who is the Lord of all vertue then for supplying of these our lacks needs our refuge is to Christs passion then we run as the Prophet saith to the cup of our Sauiour and call vpon the Name of our Lord that is to say we take his passion offer to God the Father in mystery the worke of our redemption that by this memorie commemoration of it it would please his mercifull goodnes to innovate his grace in vs to replenish vs with the fruit of his Sonns passion We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins iniquities done against him we can neuer pay this debt no scarse one farthing of a 1000 pounds what remedie then haue we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for vs all I meane Christ our Lord who hath payde his heart bloud for no debt of his own but for our
debt there whiles wee celebrate the memory of his passion we acknowledge confesse our sinnes which be without number grant that we are not able to satisfie for the least of them therfore beseech our mercifull Father to accept in full payment satisfaction of our debts his passion which after this sort as hee hath ordained to be done in the sacrifice of the masse we renew represent before him where our sinfull life hath altogether displeased him wee offer vnto him his welbeloued Son with whom we are sure he is well pleased most humbly making supplication to accept him for vs in whom only we put all our trust accounting him all our righteousnes the authour of our saluation Thus doth the Church daylie renew in mysterie the passion of Christ doth represent it before God in the holy masse for the attaining of all the graces benefites purchased by the same passion before after the measure of his goodnes as our faith deuotion is knowne vnto him And againe The Church offereth Christ Gods Sonne to God the Father that is representeth to the Father the body and bloud of Christ which by his omnipotencie hee hath there made present and thereby reneweth his passion not by suffering of death againe but after an vnbloudy manner not for this end that we should thereby deserue remission of sins deliuerance from the power of the deuill which is the proper effect of Christs passion but that we should by faith devotion this representation of his passion obtaine remission grace already deserued by his passion to be now applyed to our profite and saluation c. not that we can apply the merits of Christs death as we list to whō we list but that we by the representation of his passion most humbly make petition prayer to Almighty God to apply vnto vs the remission grace which was purchased deserued by Christs passion before after the measure of his goodnes and as our faith and deuotion is knowne vnto him The thing offered both in the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse in the sacrifice of the Church on the Altar is all one in substance being the naturall body of Christ our high Priest and the price and ransome of our redemption but the manner and effects of these two offerings are diuerse the one is by the shedding of Christs bloud extending to the death of Christ the offerer for the redemption of all mankind the other is without shedding of his bloud onely representing his death whereby the faithfull and deuout people are made partakers of the merits of Christs passion Hitherto the Bishoppe of Lincolne and to the same purpose the Authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion hath these words Diligenter ergo haec omnia nobis intuentibus nihil vel absurdi vel scrupulosi in toto missae contextu occurret sedomnia praesertim quae canon complectitur pietatis plenissima ac plané reuerenda vt sunt videbuntur Aut enim Ecclesia respicit ad corpus sanguinem Christi pro se in cruce oblata vi omnipotentis verbi in altari praesentia non veretur haec appellare hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae aut ad oblationem repraesentatiuam commemoratiuam passionis seu corporis Christi veri quae fide misericordiam per Christum apprehendente redemptionem quae est in Christo deo patri opponente peragitur non dubitat hoc sacrificium laudis offerre pro se suisque omnibus pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae nimirum spem salutis incolumitatis ac redemptionem animarum debitalaude ac gratiarum actione deo accepta referens petitque vt hanc oblationem seruitutis suae Deus placatus accipiat diesque nostros in sua pace disponat atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi et in electorum suorum grege iubeat numerari non quidem ex meritis nostris aut ex dignitate nostrae seruitutis sed per Christum dominum nostrum that is If wee rightly looke into these things nothing will occurre vnto vs in the whole context of the masse that may iustly seeme absurd or cause any scruple but all things there found especially such as are contained in the canon will appeare vnto vs as they are indeede full of piety and much to be reuerenced for either the Church hath respect to the body and bloud of Christ offered for her on the crosse and by force of his Almighty word present on the altar and so feareth not to call these a pure host an holy host an immaculate host the holy bread of eternall life and the cuppe of eternall saluation or else shee hath an eye to the representatiue and commemoratiue oblation of the passion or true body of Christ which consisteth in faith apprehending mercy by Christ and opposing vnto God the redemption that is in Christ and soe shee doubteth not to offer this sacrifice of praise for her selfe and all her members for the hope of her saluation and safety that is with all due praise and thankesgiuing shee acknowledgeth that shee hath receiued from GOD the hope of saluation safetie and the redemption of the soules of her sonnes and daughters and desireth that God will take in good part this oblation of her service and bounden dutie that hee will dispose our dayes in peace that hee will deliuer vs from eternall condemnation and that hee will make vs to be numbred with his elect not for our merits or the worthinesse of this seruice but thorough Christ our Lord. With these Georgius Wicelius a man much honoured by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian fully agreeth defining the masse to bee a sacrifice rememoratiue and of praise and thankesgiuing and in another place he saith the masse is a commemoration of the passion of Christ celebrated in the publike assembly of Christians where many giue thinkes for the price of redemption With these agreeth the Interim published by Charles the fift in the the assembly of the states of the Empire at Augusta March 15 t 1548 and there accepted by the same states But some man happily will say here are many authorities alleaged to proue that sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church in Luthers time denyed the new reall offering or sacrificing of Christ and made the sacrifice of the altar to bee onely representatiue and commemoratiue but before his time there were none found soe to teach Wherefore I will shew the consent of the Church to haue beene cleare for vs to uching this point before his time and against the Tridentine doctrine now prevailing Bonaventura in his exposition of the masse hath these words The body of Christ is eleuated and lifted vp in the masse for diuers causes but the first and principall is that wee may obtaine and regaine the favour of God the Father
which wee haue lost by our sinnes for there is nothing that offendeth God and provoketh him to be dipleased but sinne only as the Psalmist sayth they prouoked and displeased God with their inuentions the Priest therefore lifteth vp the body of Christ on the altar as if hee should thus say O heauenly Father wee haue sinned and provoked thee to anger but now looke on the face of Christ thy sonne whom wee present vnto thee to moue thee to turne from thy wrath and displeasure to mercie and grace turne not away thy face therefore from this thy holy child Iesus from this thy sonne but remember that thou hast sayd of this same thy sonne this is my welbeloued sonne in whom I am well pleased correct therefore mercifully in vs whatsoeuer thou findest in vs fit to be corrected and turne vs vnto thee and turne thy wrath from vs. The question is proposed sayth Petrus Cluniacensis why this sacrifice is so often repeated seeing Christ once offered on the crosse is sufficient to take away the sinnes of the whole world especially seeing here and there not a diuers but the same sacrifice that is the same Christ is offered For if that on the crosse sufficed this seemeth to bee supefluous but it is not superfluous c. for after hee had sayd doe this hee addeth in remembrance of mee This then is the cause of this Sacrament euen the commemoration of CHRIST Our Sauiour knew what hee had done and what hee would doe for man hee knew how great and singular that worke was which hee had done in putting on the nature of man hee knewe how wonderfull that worke would bee that hee was to do when hee should die for man hee knew that by this worke hee should saue man but that noe man could be saued without the loue of this worke hee knew that this worke of his becomming man and dying for man as it was renowned aboue all his workes soe it was especially to bee recommended vnto men for whome it was done it was specially to bee commended to them seeing his flesh was tormented for them his soule grieued and death seized on him that they might liue this was solemnly to be commended vnto them that Christ might bee beloued that being beloued hee might be possessed that being once had hee might neuer bee lost But this loue of him could not haue beene retained by men if they should-haue forgotten him neither could they haue retained the memorie of him vnlesse they should haue beene put in minde of him by some fitting outward signe For this cause was this signe proposed and appointed by CHRIST which yet is so a signe that it is the same thing that it signifieth and herein it differeth from the sacrifices of the old Law which were not that they signified Sed istud nostri sacrificij signum non aliud sed ipsum est quod signat ita vero est ci idem quod signat vt quantum ad corpus id est ad veritatem carnis sanguinis Christi pertinet sit idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem neque enim ibi Christus vt olim dolorem mortem patitur cum tamen immolari dicatur cum videlicet inviolabiter in altari frangitur diuiditur comeditur cum ijs quibusdam alijs signis in quantum fieri potest mors domini maximè repraesentatur vnde sicut dixi quantum ad veritatem corporis sanguinis Christi pertinet est idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem quam tamen maximè signat that is This signe of our sacrifice is noe other but the same thing that it signifieth but wee must soe vnderstand it to bee the same thing that it signifieth in respect of the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ which it signifieth but not in respect of his passion death though it very liuely expresse signifie that also for Christ doth not there suffer griefe or death as once he did though hee be said there to be offered immolated when hee is inviolably broken vpon the altar distributed eaten when by these the like signes Christs death is represented asmuch as possibly it may be so that as I said if we speake of the trueth of the body and bloud of Christ this signe is the thing it signifieth but if we speake of the death and suffering of Christ it is not so though it doe very clearely expressely represent signifie that his death and passion Thus we see he maketh the sacrifice to be merely representatiue Algerus excellently expresseth the same thing in these words Notandum quia quotidianum nostrum sacrificium idem ipsum dicit cum eo quo Christus semel oblatus est in cruce quantum ad eandem veram hic ibi corporis substantiā quod verò nostrum quotidianum illius semel oblati dicit esse exemplum id est figuram vel formam non dicit ut hic vel ibi alium Christum constituat sed ut eundem in cruce semel in altari quotidiè alio modo immolari offerri ostendat ibi in veritate passionis quâ pro nobis occisus est hic in figurâ imitatione passionis ipsius quâ Christus non iterum verè patitur sed ipsius verè memoria passionis quotidiè nobis iteratur quod ipse Ambrosius notans subiicit Quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationē non aliud sacrificium sed ipsum semper offerimus magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Non ergo est in ipsius Christi veritate diversitas sed in ipsius immolationis actione quae dum veram Christi passionem mortem quâdam suâ similitudine figurando repraesentat nos ad imitationē ipsius passionis invitat accendit contra hostem nos roborat munit à vitiis purgans virtutibus condecorans vitae aeternae idoneos dignos exhibet That is It is to bee noted that our daylie sacrifice is the same thing with that sacrifice whereby Christ was once offered vpon the crosse in that the same true substance is offered here that was offered there whereas therefore he saith that the sacrifice which we daylie offer is a similitude figure or representation of that sacrifice which Christ once offered he is not to be conceiued to imagine that there is one Christ essentially here another there but his meaning is to shew that the same Christ once offered on the crosse is dayly offered in another sort on the altar there in the truth of his passion being slaine for vs here in figure and imitation of his passion not suffering againe indeed but hauing the memory of his passion which once he endured daylie renewed which thing Ambrose himself also obseruing hath these words That which we doe is done in remembrance of that which
was then done for he saith doe this in remembrance of me We do not therefore offer another sacrifice but we alwayes offer the same or rather that we doe is a remembrance of that sacrifice which was once offered There is therefore no diuersitie in the trueth and being of that Christ that offered himselfe and that wee offer but in the action of offering For while that which wee doe representeth the true passion and death of CHRIST and by a certaine similitude it hath of the same setteth it liuely before our eyes it inviteth and enflameth vs to the imitation of his passion it strengtheneth confirmeth vs against the enemie it purgeth vs from sin beautifieth vs with vertues and maketh vs meete worthy to enter into eternall life And afterwards hee hath these words Semel passus in cruce qui non manifestè sed invisibilitèr est in sacramento quotidie non passus sed quasi paâ—… repraesentatus hanc immolationem non vero sed imaginario actu passionis mortis fieri tamen veram salutem operari testatur Gregorius dialog 4. c. 58. That is Christ suffered once on the crosse who not visibly but invisibly is in the sacrament neither doth hee daily suffer but his suffering is daily represented this immolation or offering Gregorie saith consisteth not in the trueth of passion or death but in a meere representation of the same and that yet it worketh true salvation And after hee addeth Licet non verâ sed imaginariâ passione in seipsa immoletur verâ tamen non imaginariâ passione in membris suis immolatur quando nos qui in memoriam passionis suae sacramentum tantae pietatis suae agimus sacrificando ipsum flendo cor nostrum verâ compunctione atterendo mortem tam pij dilecti Domini patris annunciamus That is Though Christ bee not offered by any reall passion in himselfe but in a meere representation of his passion yet hee is offered by a true and more than imaginary passion in his members while wee who in memory of his passion celebrate this sacrament of his so great goodnesse louing kindnes towards vs offer this sacrifice by weeping breaking our heart with true compunction shew forth the death of our so gracious and dearely beloued Lord and father Paschasius maketh the same construction of the sacrifice and Peter Lombard proposing the question whether that the priest doth may properly bee named a sacrifice or immolation answereth that Christ was onely once truely properly offered in sacrifice and that hee is not properly immolated or sacrificed but in sacrament representation onely Bellarmines shift to avoyd this testimonie is very sillie for hee sayth that Peter Lombard did not propose the question whether and how Christ may bee sayd to bee sacrificed but how hee may be sayd to bee so sacrificed as to be slaine and that in this sense he sayth truely that Christ was onely once properly sacrificed for that he cannot bee sayd any more to bee killed or slaine but in mystery and signification or representation onely Whereas it is most cleere and evident that hee proposeth the question simply and in generall whether hee may be said to bee sacrificed or not and seeing the sacrificing of a liuing thing doth import the killing and destroying of it and the sacrificing of Christ the killing of Christ he pronounceth that as Christ can die no more so hee can no more be properly sacrificed and that therefore when he is said to bee sacrificed or offered in the eucharist wee must vnderstand that hee is offered onely in representation and not really That this is his meaning it appeareth by that which he hath writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes where hee doth not propose the question whether Christ may be said to be so offered often as to die often but how it commeth to passe that the Church daily offereth sacrifice seeing as the Apostle saith where there is one sacrifice hauing force to take away sin once offered there is no neede that any more sacrifices should bee offered and answereth herevnto that the thing now offered is the same that was offered on the crosse that the offering of it now is commemoratiue that that which we do is but recordatio sacrificij the calling to minde of Christs sacrifice once offered that it may be applied vnto vs for the remission of our sinnes so absolutely excluding all sacrifice for sinne properly so called of what kind soeuer it be And Thomas Aquinas on the same place proposing the obiection of the repetition and daily reiteration of sacrifice in the Church which seemeth to import that that of Christ was not sufficient to take away sin answereth that we offer not any other but the very same sacrifice that Christ did that is his body bloud that it is no new or different oblation properly so named but a coÌ„memoration only of that sacrifice which Christ once offered Henricus Gorrichem writing vpon the sentences saith that in the eucharist there is the offering of a sacrifice not really or in the thing it selfe but in similitude for that which is there dayly done is a signe bringing to our remembrance and figuring or representing that oblation that was once made With whom Lyra agreeth his words are Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in Ecclesia dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificii iteratio sed vnius sacrificii in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio that is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is dayly offered in the Church it must be answered that there is noe reiteration of the sacrifice but a dayly commemoration of that sacrifice that was once offered on the crosse This hee saith in answere to that obiection that seeing now as in the time of the law there is often offering for sin it seemeth no sufficient sacrifice hath beene offered which obiection could not be cleared by his answere vnlesse he denied the often offering of any kind of sacrifice for sin whether bloudy or vnbloudy Wherefore that which Bellarmine hath that Aquinas the other SchoolemeÌ„ for the most part do no otherwise say that the sacrifice of the masse is an immolatioÌ„ of Christ but in that it is a represeÌ„tatioÌ„ of Christs immolatioÌ„ on the crosse or because it hath like effects with that true reall sacrificing of Christ that implyed his death is most true his euasion is found too silly it is made cleare euident that the best worthiest amongst the guides of Gods Church before Luthers time taught as we do that the sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice of praise thankesgiuing and a mere representation and commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the crosse and consequently are all put vnder the curse and anathematized by the Tridentine councell Soe that the face of religion was not the same before and at Luthers
contrary side there are so many examples proposed that it ought not so to be done With Clemens Alexandrinus and Optatus Hierome agreeth who vpon the 44. of Ezekiel saith in expresse words that Priests must neither nourish their haire nor be shaued but so polled that their skinne may still remaine hid and couered and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Dionysius Epiphanius Hierome Athanafius Palladius Augustine Isidore Bede and the Councels of Carthage Toledo doe speake of tonsure onely and neuer mention rasure and that the Epistle of Anicetus the Pope alledged for rasure is not indubitate What then will the Cardinall bring for defence of the contrary custome now prevayling in the Church of Rome and what will he answer to these authorities of the ancient We reprehend not saith he the customes of those times neither do they of those times condemne our obseruation For howsoeuer tonsure and not rasure was anciently vsed yet were not they of the Clergie forbidden to vse rasure or to shaue their heads A strange answer of so great a Rabbi and contrary to that he knoweth to be vndoubtedly true For Optatus directly condemneth rasure as wee haue heard and Hierome writing vpon the 44 of Ezekiel hath these words Quod autem sequitur Caput autem suū non radent neque comam nutrient sed tondentes attondebunt capita sua perspicuè demonstratur nec rasis capitibus sicut Sacerdotes cultoresque Isidis atque Serapis nos esse debere nec rursum comam dimittere quod propriè luxuriosorum est barbarorumque militantium c. That is that which followeth They shall not shaue their heads nor let their haire grow long but polling they shall polle their heads doeth clearely demonstrate that wee should neither shaue our heads like the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis nor on the other side let our haire grow long as wantons barbarous men and Souldiers are wont to doe that that which is fitting honest and seemely may appeare in the faces of the Priests The Septnagint reade the wordes of the Prophet somewhat otherwise in this sort They shall not shaue their heads nor cut their haire too neere sed operientes operient capitasua that is but hiding they shall hide their heads whereby wee learne that wee must neither make our selues bald by shauing nor cut the haire of our heads so neere as if wee were shauen but let our haire grow so that the skinne may be hid couered These are the words of Hierome whereby it appeareth that the absurd and ridiculous ceremony of the Romanists in shauing the heads of those of their Clergie is condemned by the Fathers and that Bellarmine speaketh against his owne conscience when hee sayth the contrary Wherefore ceasing any longer to insist vpon the refutation of the absurditie of so ridiculous a ceromonie and leauing those inferiour orders and degrees of Ministerie in the Church of God wherein men in auncient times were trained vp vnder the rules of strict and seuere gouernment discipline and fitted for higher and greater employments let vs come to the office of the Deacons The office of Bishops Presbyters was from Christs owne immediate institution but the institution of Deacons was from the Apostles as Cyprian deliuereth These the Bishop alone may ordaine neither is it necessarie that other impose their hands with him as in the ordination of Presbyters seeing they are consecrated onely to bee assistants to the Bishop Presbyters not admitted into the fellowship of the same power and order with them The Deacons according to the intendment of their first institution were to take care of the poore and the treasure of the Church and therevpon Chrysostome and after him the Fathers of the sixth generall Councell doe thinke they were not the same wee now haue ours being busied in other affaires of the Church But I am of opinion that they were the same and that the end of their first institution being principally to ease the Apostles of the care of prouiding for the poore and to take the charge of the Church-treasure when the treasure of the Church encreasing was committed to certaine Stewards and the poore otherwise provided for they were more specially vsed for the assisting of the Bishoppe and Presbyters in things pertaining to Gods seruice and worship Whereupon wee shall finde in some cases they might baptize reconcile penitents preach and doe sundry other things pertaining to the office of the Bishop and Presbyters That in some cases they might baptize u Tertullian witnesseth That they might reconcile penitents wee haue the authoritie of Saint Cyprian That they might preach wee haue the testimony of Saint z Gregory And that they assisted the Bishops and Presbyters in ministring the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud and ministred the cup it appeareth by Cyprian And hereupon Hierome amplifieth the dignity of them exceedingly shewing that for avoyding presumption the Presbyters may not take the cup of the Lord from the holy Table vnlesse it be deliuered vnto them by the Deacons These are they saith hee of whom we reade in the Revelation Septem Angeli Ecclesiarum hi sunt septem candelabra aurea hi sunt voces tonitruorum virtutum operatione praeclari humilitate praediti quieti Euangelizantes pacem annunciantes bona dissentiones rixas scandala resecare docentes soli Deo colloquentes in templo nihil penitus de mundo cogitantes dicentes Patri Matri non noui vos filios suos non agnoscentes Sine his Sacerdos nomen non habet ortum non habet officium non habet that is These are the seauen Angels of the Churches these are the seauen golden Candlestickes these are the voyces of the thunders these are renowned for the operation of vertues humble quiet preaching peace publishing good things teaching how to cut away dissentions brawles and scandals communing with God alone in his holy temple hauing no thought of the world saying to Father and Mother I know you not and not acknowledging their own sons without these the priest hath not the name not the beginning not the office of a Priest And a litle after he addeth Sacerdotibus etiam propter praesumptionem non licet de mensa Domini calicem tollere nisi eis traditus fuerit à Diaconis Leuitae componunt mensam Domini Leuitae Sacerdotibus cum Sacramenta benedicunt assistunt Leuitae ante Sacerdotes orant vt aures habeamus ad Dominum Diaconus acclamat that is Euen the Priests themselues for the auoiding of presumption must not take the holy cup from off the Table of the Lord vnlesse it be deliuered to them by the Deacons The Deacons or Leuites prepare the Table of the Lord and make all things ready on the same The Leuites assist the Priests when they blesse and sanctifie the sacramentall elements The Leuites pray before the Priests The Deacon crieth out aloud vnto vs to open our eares and
to listen and heare what the Lord will speake vnto vs. Great and glorious are these dignities of the Deacons yet the councell of Carthage maketh them Ministers not of the Bishop alone but of the Presbyters also soe that they might not sit in the presence of the Bishop or Presbyters And when some went about to preferre them before Presbyters Hierome with great violence opposed himselfe against the same saying Quid patitur mensarum viduarum minister vt supra eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur that is What passion is this that thus transporteth the Minister of the Tables and Widowes that swelling in pride hee should lift vp himselfe aboue them at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is consecrated And obiecting to himselfe the custome of the Romane Church where a Presbyter is ordained vpon the testimony of a Deacon hee passionately breaketh into these words Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem Diaconos paucitas honorabiles Presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit Caeterum etiam in Ecclesiâ Romae Presbyteri sedent stant Diaconi licet paulatim increbresentibus vitijs inter Presbyteros absente Episcopo sedere Diaconum viderim that is why dost thou vrge me with the custome of one Citie the fewnesse of Deacons maketh them honorable and the number of Presbyters make theÌ„ to be lesse esteemed Yet eueÌ„ in the Church of Rome Presbyters do sit and Deacons stand although things growing worse and worse by degrees and many things growing out of order I haue seene a Deacon in the absence of the Bishop sit amongst the Presbyters Out of the society and company of the Deacons in each Church there was one chosen who not only was to performe the things pertaining to the Deacons office but also to prescribe vnto others what they should doe The institution of these is not new but very ancient as it appeareth by Hierome who vrging the necessity of order and gouernment sheweth that the heardes of cattel haue their leaders which they follow that Bees haue their King that the Cranes flye after one that leadeth them the way that there is one Emperour and one Iudge of each prouince that Rome could not haue two brethren to reigne in her as Kings but was dedicated in parricide that â—…sau and Iacob were at warre in the wombe of Rebeccah that euery Church hath her Bishop euery company of Presbyters and Deacons their Arch-presbyter and Arch-deacon These chiefe Deacons or Arch-deacons were in processe of time notwithstanding all Canons to the contrary and the violent opposition of Hierome and other Worthies of those times lifted vp not onely aboue the Presbyters but the Arch-presbyters also The reason of which their aduancement was first because the number of Presbyters made them little esteemed and the paucity and fewnesse of Deacons made them honourable as I noted before out of Hierome Secondly because they were busied about money-matters and had the charge of the treasure of the Church which kind of imployments are vsually much set by Thirdly because being Ministers vnto the Bishop they were vsed by him for the viewing of such parts of his Diocese as he could not conueniently come vnto himselfe the dispatch of thinges for him and in the end for the reformation of the lesser and smaller faults which vpon such view they should find Whereupon at the last they obtained a kind of jurisdiction power of correction by prescriptioÌ„ custome whereof I shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter Thus haue we spoken of the inferiour degrees of Ministery by which men were wont to ascend to the higher being trained vp for a certaine space in the lower that they might thereby be fitted for the higher according to that of Hierome touching Nepotian Fit Clericus per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur that is Hee is made a Clergie-man and passing through the ordinary degrees he is ordained a Presbyter CHAP. 26. Of the orders and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and the gouernment of Gods people and particularly of Lay-Elders falsly by some supposed to be Gouernours of the Church NOW it remaineth that we speake of them that are trusted with the ministery of the Word and Sacraments and the gouernment of Gods people comprehended vnder one common name of Presbyters that is Fatherly Guides of Gods Church and people Touching these Presbyters or fatherly Guides of Gods Church some in our time haue a new and strange conceipt making them to be of two sorts whereof some haue charge of gouernment onely and some together therewith the ministery of the Word and Sacraments the one sort Lay-men and the other Clergie-men the one sort gouerning only the other sort preaching teaching ministring Sacraments and gouerning also Touching these newly supposed gouerning Elders that are not Mininisters of the Word and Sacraments I will first set downe the reasons that moue vs to thinke there neuer were any such in the Church and secondly I will shew the weakenesse of their reasons that are induced to thinke there were The first reason that moueth vs to thinke there neuer were any such is because Bishops Presbyters that preach and minister Sacraments and Deacons that assist them howsoeuer they much degenerated in later times yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the world though in many things exceedingly different as Greeke Latine Aethiopian and Armenian in their names and offices also in some sort But of these Lay-elders there are noe foot-steps to be found in any Christian Church in the world nor were not for many hundred yeares whereas there would haue beene some remaines of these as well as of the other had they euer had any institution from Christ and his Apostles as the other had Our second reason is for that S. Paul prescribing Timothy how he should establish the Church and appoint her Pastours and shewing who should be Bishops and Ministers who Deacons yea who Widowes passeth immediately from describing the qualitie of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to the Deacons omitting these Lay-elders that are supposed to lye in the midst betweene them no way describing vnto vs of what quality they must bee which in reason hee neither might nor would haue omitted if there had beene any such Our third reason is for that neither Scripture nor practice of the Church bounding the gouernment of such Gouernours nor giuing any direction how farre they may goe in the same and where they must stay lest they meddle with that they haue nothing to doe with men should be left to a most dangerous vncertainty in an office and employment of so great consequence either of not doing that their office and place requireth or presuming beyond that they should which is not to be conceiued seeing Christ our gracious Sauiour by himselfe or his Apostles
authority so to do Which kind of reasoning I thinke the Reader will not much like of Touching Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Paule Bishop of Constantinople and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra deposed by the Orientall Synode their complaints to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of the West of the wrongs done vnto them how the Bishop of Rome with the Westerne Bishops fought to relieue them with how ill successe and how litle this instance serueth to proue the thinge in question I haue shewed before as likewise Theodorets desiring Leo with his Westerne Synodes to take knowledge of his cause Soe that it is a vaine bragge of Bellarmine that to these and the like testimonies of Antiquity nothing is nor can be answered CHAP. 38. Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreme power of Popes as are taken from their Lawes Censures Dispensations and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them HAVING examined the pretended proofes of the illimited vniversality of the Popes authority and jurisdiction taken from the power they are supposed to haue exercised in former times ouer other Bishops by confirming deposing or restoring them let vs come to their Lawes Dispensations Censures see if frō thence any thing may be cōcluded If they could as strongly proue as they cōfidētly endertake that Popes in ancient times made Lawes to bind the whole Christian Church dispensed with such as were made by general Coūcels cēsured al men as subject to them of necessity we must be forced to acknowledge the fulnesse of all power to rest in the Romane Bishops But their proofes are too weake to make vs beleeue any such thing For first touching the decrees of Popes they did not binde the whole Christian Church but the Westerne Provinces onely that were subject to them as Patriarches of the West And secondly they were not made by them without the consent and joint concurrence of the other Bishops of the West assembled in Synodes and sitting with them as their fellow Iudges with equall power of defining and determining things concerning the state of the Church as appeareth by the Decrees of Gregory the first who sitting in Councell with all the Bishops of the Roman Church the Deacons and inferiour Clergy-men standing before them made Decrees and confirmed them by their subscriptions the rest of the Bishops and the Presbyters also who sate in Councell with them subscribing in the very same sort that Gregory did And of Decrees in such sort made Leo speaketh when he requireth the Bishops of Campania Picene Thuscia to keepe and obserue the Decretall constitutions of Innocentius and all other his predecessours which they had ordained as well touching Ecclesiasticall orders as the Discipline of the Canons or otherwise to looke for no fauour or pardon And in the very same sort are the words of Hilarius to be vnderstood when he saith That no man may violate either the divine constitutions or the Decrees of the Apostolique See without danger of losing his place For this he spake sitting as President in a Councell of Bishops assembled at Rome of things decreed by Synodes of Bishops wherein his predecessours were Presidents and Moderatours as he was now but not absolute commaunders But Bellarmine saith that Pope Anastasius the yonger in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour willeth him not to resist the Apostolicall precepts but obediently to performe what by the Church of Rome and Apostolicall authority shall be prescribed vnto him if hee desire to holde communion with the same holy Church of GOD which is his Head Therefore the Pope had power to command and giue lawes to the Emperour and consequently had an absolute supreme authority in the Church Surely this allegation of the Cardinall is like the rest For Anastasius doth not speake in any such peremptory and threatning manner to the Emperour but acknowledging his breast to bee a Sanctuary of happinesse and that he is Gods Vicar on earth telleth him in modest and humble sort that hee hopeth hee will not suffer the insolencie of those of Constantinople proudly to resist against the Evangelicall and Apostolicall precepts in the cause of Acatius but that he will force them to performe and doe what is fit and in like humble sort beseecheth him when he shall vnderstand the cause of them of Alexandria to force them to returne to the vnity of the Church The last instance of the Popes Law-giuing power brought by Bellarmine is the priviledge granted to the Monastery of Saint Medardus by Gregory the first in the end whereof we finde these words Whatsoeuer Kings Bishops Iudges or secular persons shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolicall authority and our commaundement shall be depriued of their honour driuen from the society of Christians put from the communion of the Lords body and bloud and subjected to Anathema and all the wofull curses that Infidels Heretikes haue beene subject to from the beginning of the world to this present time A strong confirmation of the priviledges graunted is found in these wordes but a weake confirmation of the thing in question for the priuiledges were graunted and confirmed in this sort not by Gregory alone out of the fulnesse of his power but by the consenting voyce of all the Bishops of Italy and France by the authority of the Senate of Rome by Theodoricus the King and Brunichildis the Queene So that from hence no proofe possibly can be drawne of the Popes absolute power of making lawes by himselfe alone to binde any part of the Christian Church much lesse the whole Christian world Wherfore let vs passe from the Popes power of making lawes to see by what right they claime authority to dispense with the Lawes of the Church and the Canons of Generall Councels The first that is alleadged to haue dispensed with the Canons of Councels is Gelasius But this allegation is idle and to no purpose For first it cannot bee proued that by dispensing he sought to free any from the necessity of doing that the strictnesse of the Canon required but those onely that were subiect to him as Patriarch of the West And secondly he did not dispense but vpon very vrgent cause and driuen by necessity so to doe and yet not of himselfe alone but with the concurrence of other Bishops of the West assembled in Synode The other instances that are brought of the dispensations of Gregory the first are nothing else but the instances of the ill consciences of them that bring them For Gregory did not dispense with the English to marry within the degrees prohibited as the Cardinall vntruely reporteth but only aduised Austine not to put them that were newly conuerted from such wiues as they had married within some of the degrees prohibited in the time of their infidelity lest hee might seeme to punish them for faults committed in the daies of their ignorance and to discourage other from becomming Christians Neither
chiefe-fathers of Israel they came to Ierusalem and all the congregation made a couenant with the King said The Kings sonne must reigne as the Lord hath said of the sons of Dauid Hereupon the King is proclaimed Athaliah is slaine the house of Baal destroied the Altars and idols that were in it broken down In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chiefe Priests power of deposing lawfull kings if they become heretiques For first Athaliah was an vsurper no lawfull Queene Secondly here was nothing done by Iehoiada alone but by him and the Captaines of hundreths and the chiefe Fathers of Israel that entred into couenant with him Thirdly there is great difference betweene the high Priest in the time of the Lawe and in the time of Christ. For before the comming of Christ the high Priest euen in the managing of the weightiest ciuill affaires and in iudgement of life and death sate in the Councell of State as the second person next vnto the King by Gods owne appointment Whereas our Aduersaries dare not claime any such thing for the Pope And therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if the high Priest beeing the second person in the kingdome of Iudah by Gods owne appointment and the Vnckle and Protectour of the young king whom his wife had saued from destruction bee the first mouer for the bringing of him to his right and when things are resolued on by common consent take on him not onely to commaund and direct the Priests and Leuites but the Captaines souldiers also for the establishing of their King the suppressing of a bloody tyrant and vsurper For all this might be done by Iehoiada as a chiefe man in that state and yet the Pope be so farre from obtaining that he claimeth which is to depose lawfull kings for abusing their authority that hee may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did and might doe as not hauing so great preeminence from Christ in respect of matters of ciuill state in any kingdome of the world as the high Priest had by Gods owne appointment in the kingdome of Iudah Israel In the old Law saith Occā the high Priest meddled in matters of warre in the judgment of life and death the losse of members vengeance of blood it beseemed him well so to do But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature Wherefore from the power dominion which the high Priest of the old Law had it cannot be concluded that the Pope hath any power in tēporal matters The fifth example is of Ambrose repelling Theodosius the Emperour from the communion of the Church after the bloody and horrible murther that was committed at Thessalonica by his commandement The story is this The coach-man of Borherica the Captaine of the souldiers in that towne for some fault was committed to prison Now when the solemne horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen approched the people of Thessalonica desired to haue him set at liberty as one of whom there would be great vse in those ensuing solemne sports which being denied the citty was in an vprore and Botherica and certaine other of the magistrates were stoned to death and most despitefully vsed Theodosius the Emperour hearing of this outrage was exceedingly moued and commaunded a certaine number to be put to the sword without all iudiciall forme of proceeding or putting difference betweene offendors and such as were innocent So that seauen thousand perished by the sword and among them many strangers that were come into the citty vpon diuerse occasions that had no part in the outrage for which Theodosius was so sore displeased were most cruelly and vniustly slaine Saint Ambrose vnderstanding of this violent and vniust proceeding of the Emperour the next time he came to Millaine and was comming to the Church after his wonted manner met him at the doore and stayd him from entring with this speech Thou seemest not to know O Emperour what horrible and bloudy murthers haue beene committed by thee neither dost thou bethinke thy selfe now thy rage is past to what extremities thy fury carried thee perhaps the glory of thine Imperiall power will not let thee take notice of any fault thy greatnesse repelleth all checke of reason controlling thee but thou shouldest know the frailty of mans nature and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken and and to which we must returne Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakenesse of that body of flesh that is couered with them Thy subjects O Emperour are in nature like thee and in seruice thy fellowes for there is one Lord and commander ouer all the maker of all things Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple or with what feete wilt thou treade on the sacred pauement thereof wilt thou lift vp to him those hands from which the bloud yet droppeth wilt thou receiue with them the sacred body of our Lord or wilt thou presume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious bloud of Christ which hast shed so much innocent bloud by the word of thy mouth vttering the passion of thy furious minde Depart therefore adde not this iniquity to the rest and decline not those bands which God aboue approueth With these speeches the Emperour was much moued and knowing the distinct duties both of Emperours and Bishops for that he had bin trained vp in the knowledge of heauenly doctrine returned to the Court with teares sighes A long time after for eight moneths were first past the solemne feast of the Natiuity of Christ approached and all prepared themselues to solemnize the same with triumphant ioy But the Emperor sate in the Court lamenting powring out riuers of teares which when Ruffinus maister of the pallace perceiued he came vnto him and asked the cause of his weeping to whom weeping more bitterly then before he said O Ruffinus thou makest but a sport of these things for thou art touched with no sence of those euils wherewith I am afflicted but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament for that whereas the doores of Gods Temple are open to slaues and beggars and they goe freely into the same to make prayers vnto their Lord they are shut against me and which is yet worse the gates of heauen are shut against me also for I cannot forget the words of our Lord who saith Whomsoeuer ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen To whom Ruffinus replied I will runne if it please thee O Emperour to the Bishop and intreate him to vnloose these bands wherewith hee hath bound thee No saith the Emperour it is to no purpose so to doe for he will not bee intreated I know his sentence is right and iust and that he will not transgresse the law of God for any respect of imperiall power Yet when Ruffinus was
lawfull Marriage which though they preuailed not at the first according to the wishes of the wicked Pope yet caused the most horrible confusions in the Westerne Church that euer had been for Lay-men taking occasion hereupon despised their Priests medled with the Ministration of Holy thinges ministered the Sacrament of Baptisme annoynted men with the filthe which they tooke out of their eares in steade of oyle did many things most disorderly and committed sundry intollerable outrages And therefore it is most strange that Bellarmine should so forget himselfe as he doth For whereas all stories impute these confusions prophanations and contempts of sacred things to the restraint of marriage and the disgracing of it so hard is his forhead that he blusheth not to write that the marriage of Ministers would hinder the due and reuerent administration of Sacraments and that experience shewed it in that in Germany in the time of Gregory the Seauenth when Priests began to marry wiues there grew so great contempt of the Sacraments that Lay-men beganne to administer them as Nauclerus and others report In which speech of his there is no word true for neither did Priests begin to marry in Gregories time but had beene ordinarily married long before as Nauclerus testifieth saying it was an old confirmed custome that was not easily to bee altered which Gregory sought to take away when hee went about to forbid the marriage of Priests So that they did rather cease to marry in his time then beginne Neither doth any story impute the confusions prophanations contempts of Sacraments and sacred things in those times to the marriage of Priests which was publickely allowed long before without any such euill ensuing as Aventinus and others doe testifie but to the restraint of it And therefore it was not the beginning as Bellarmine vntruely saith but the ending of Priests marriages in Gregories time that brought in so many and hideous euills into the Christian world Thus hauing seene with how bad successe Gregory the Seauenth beganne this restraint in other partes of the Christian world let vs take a view of our owne countrey and see what footing it had here Henry Huntingdon an auncient Historian and of good creditte reporteth that before the time of Anselme Bishoppe of Canterbury the marriage of Presbyters and other Ministers of the Church was not forbidden in England that when he forbad it howsoeuer hee pleased some for that there seemed to bee greater purity in single life then in the state of Marriage yet this his prohibition seemed to other to be very dangerous fearing that whiles he sought to bring men to that which is aboue the reach and without the compasse of humane frailty hee would occasion many greeuous and scandalous euills But howsoeuer this his endeauour tooke not place by and by for the same authour reporteth that after that time one Iohn Cremensis a Cardinall came into England and went about to restraine the Marriages of Church-men So that it appeareth that Anselme had effected nothing This worthy Cardinall as hee reporteth held a Synode at London and in the same made a vehement and bitter speach against the marriage of Presbyters asking if it were not an impure and vnfitting thing for a Minister of the Church to rise vp from the side of an harlot for so it pleased him to terme the lawfull wiues of Church-men and to goe to the Altar to consecrate the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood But see the judgement of God saith Huntingdon The Impure Cardinall that had thus inveighed against Marriage the night following was taken in bed with an Harlot though hee had said Masse and consecrated the blessed Sacrament in the morning which thing was so euident that it could not and so foule that it was not fitte to be concealed and hee addeth that if any Romane Prelate or other dislike this his most true reporte hee were best to take heede hee follow not the example of Cremensis least the like dishonour come vnto him as did vnto Cremensis who being at first receiued in very glorious manner was in the end cast out with disgrace and vvho despising lawfull marriage feared not to commit most filthy vvhoredome Hereupon it seemeth the matter of restraint of Presbyters marriage had no good successe at that time which appeareth also in that after this time in a Councell it was referred to the King hee vvas authorised appointed to punish such Presbyters and ministers of the Church as he should find married but he notably deceiued the Popes Agents that thus authorised him for hee tooke money of such as vvere found to be married and suffered them so to redeeme their liberties vvhich grieued them not a little yet did they in the end so farre forth obtaine their desires and the tyranny of Antichrist so farre prevailed that Presby ters durst no longer bee knowne publickly to be married but were forced to take another course for as it appeareth by the Decrees of Otho in the time of Henry the Third many contracted matrimony secretly and when in processe of time children were borne vnto them for their good when they saw it fit they would take order it might be proued they were married and their children borne in mariage either by witnesses or publicke instruments either while they liued or after their death Whereby it is evident that howsoeuer the impure Romanists sought to keep Cleargy-men from marying and to force them by the censures of the Church and other extremities to put away their wiues yet at that time they durst not pronounce their mariages voyde nor their children illegitimate for if they had these men would not so carefully haue provided to bee able to make proofe of their mariages for the good of their children So that though there wanted not instruments set a worke by the Pope some hundreds of yeares past that sought to restraine the mariage of Cleargy-men yet was not their restraint like vnto that of the Romanists at this day for they did not so restraine Cleargy-men from marying or liuing with their wiues as to pronounce their mariages to be voyde neither did they separate those that God had joyned together but if they would marry or continue with their wiues which they had formerly maried they permitted them so to doe and onely put them from the minstery Presbyters in former times saith o Duarenus if they tooke wiues in those places where mariage was forbidden were put from the ministery or perhaps where more severity was vsed were excommunicated but their mariage was not voyded yet is it not to be denyed but that Syricius and Innocentius spake very vnreverently of the state of mariage indeavouring to proue that Presbyters are not to bee suffered to marry because to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh they that liue in the flesh cannot please God How absurd and inconsiderate this kinde of reasoning is euery man I
the conscience that they that whip themselues as some sectaries amongst the Papistes doe are to bee condemned and that the patient enduring of those crosses which God layeth vpon vs is more acceptable to God then these voluntary chastisements Hee condemneth Monkes intermedling with Secular or Ecclesiasticall businesses the superfluous pompe and Princely state of Cardinalls and Bishops making them forget that they are men that one man holdeth two or three hundred Ecclesiasticall liuings that the sword of excommunication is soe eâ—…ily drawne-out for trifles and the Lords of the Cleargy vse it for the maintenance of their owne state hee disliketh the Popes appointing of strangers to take cure of soules the varietie of Pictures and Images in Churches occasioning idolatry in the simple the number and variety of religious orders the canonizing of new Saints there being too many Canonized already the Apocryphall Scriptures Hymnes and Prayers in processe of time brought into the Church of purpose or ignorance to the great hurt of the Christian faith the diuersity of opinions in the Church as about the conception of the blessed Virgin and the like the intollerable superstition in the worshiping of Saints innumerable obseruations without all ground of reason vaine credulity in beleeuing things concerning the Saints reported in the vncertaine legends of their liues superstitious opinions of obtaining pardon and remission of sinnes by saying a number of Pater-nosters in such a Church before such an image the vrging of humane deuises more then the lawes of God and punishing more seuerely the breach of their owne lawes then the lawes of God the contempt of the holy Scripture which is sufficient for the gouernement of the Church and the following of humane inuentions which made the state of the Church to be meerely brutish the ambition pride and couetousnesse of Popes subiecting all vnto themselues and suffering no man to say vnto them Why do you soe though they ouer-turne the course of Nature their getting all into their owne hands by many crafty and ill meanes to the ouer-throwe of that order that should bee in the Church and therevppon sheweth that it was the opinion of men right wise and godly in his time that there beeing a Schisme in the Church and three seuerall pretenders challenging the Papall chaire it were good to take the aduantage of that difference and neuer to restore againe to any pope the vniuersall administration of the temporalities of the Church and the swaying of the jurisdiction of the same but that it were best that all things were brought backe to that state they were in in the times of the Apostles or at least in the times of Syluester and Gregory when each Prelate within his owne jurisdiction was permitted to gouerne such as were committed to him without soe many reseruations and exactions as haue been since brought in These things considered I suppose it will not seeme soe strange as Maister Higgons would make it that I bring in Iohn Gerson as a worthy guide of the Church in his â—…me and a man wishing the reformation of the same as farre as it pleased God to enlighten him though hee saw not all which other did in the same times or before or since Neither will it euer be proued that hee would haue disliked any part of the preâ—… reformation though hee condemned the inconsiderate positions of Wickliffe and though he held some opinions contrary to that which wee now teach For as Augustine said of Cyprian his colleagues erring in the matter of rebaptization that if they â—…d bin in his time when vpon full exact discussing of things it was resolued otherwise they would haue beene of another minde so surely if Gerson had liued in latter times when Learning reviued all sorts of ancient authors were brought out of the couerts of darknesse into the light and view of the world he would haue condemned many things which he did not as many other did both before Luther began to preach and since whom yet our Adversaries dare not traduce as Hereticks Which we are induced to thinke because himselfe professeth that the rent of the Church by reason of the three pretenders challenging the Papal chaire the calamity that followed the same brought many things to light that were not knowne before and was the occasion of much good and the finding out of many truthes fit and necessary to be knowne and in his booke De auferibilitate Papae in which hee sheweth many cases wherein the Pope may be deposed limited restrained o-haue obedience denyed vnto him he professeth he hath laide downe sundry considerations touching this matter to open the way to others to enter farther to find out more then he did as indeed we see Cusanus a Cardinall did who resolueth wholly with vs that the Pope is but onely prime Bishop amongst the Bishops of the world and that he is but onely in order and honour aboue others Yet let vs heare what Master Higgons can say to the contrary Gerson q saith he beleeued Transubstantiation approued the Masse admitted Purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences coÌ„munion vnder one kind therefore he could not wish the reformation that is now wrought by Luther and the rest Of Transubstantiation I haue spoken already shewed that many admitted the word that yet neuer beleeued the thing which our adversaries now professe as also what is to be thought of Gersons opinioÌ„ touching this point being the Scholler of Cameracensis who professeth that for any thing he can see Transubstantiation properly so named can neither bee prooued out of Scripture nor any determination of the Vniversall Church Touching the Masse wee must know that the holy Eucharist and blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ is named missa misse or masse à missis id est dimissis publica diaconi voce Catechumenis iisque qui Sacramentorum participationiidonei non erant that is for that after the prayers and readings of the Scripture before the consecration the Catechumens and all such as were not to communicate were dismissed and sent away the Deacon crying aloude Ite missa est that is Depart you are dismissed And euen in Gregories time the custome was that the Deacon after the reading of the Gospell pronounced those solemne wordes Si quis non communicat exeat that is If there be any that communicateth not let him goe out So that the Papistes haue no misse or masse if we speake properly for with them none are dismissed but all permitted to bee present and yet none communicate but the Priest whereas the name of masse was giuen to this Holy Sacrament for that none were permitted to be present but such as would communicate But to let goe this advantage there is no question but that Gerson allowed of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and bloud but I think it will hardly be proued that hee approoued the alteration of the auncient custome of the peoples
tenthes and such like extraordinary taxes vppon the poore Cleargy And as if nothing would suffice ouerthrew all the iurisdiction of other Bishops brought all matters of suite to the Court of Rome and thereby also filled their coffers and that nothing might bee wanting to make the Church most miserable the proud spirits of Cardinalls the Popes Assessors their swelling words and their insolent gestures were such that if a man would draw a perfit picture of pride the best way to expresse the same were to paint a Cardinall For though these men at the first were but of the inferiour Cleargy yet in time they so enlarged their Phylacteries that they do not onely despise Bishops whom in contempt they call Episcopellos but also Patriarches Primates and Arch-bishops as their inferiors and almost suffer themselues to be adored of them Yea they think themselues to be Kinges fellowes neyther did they content them-selues thus proudly and insolently to aduance themselues aboue these vnder whom they should haue bin but to maintaine their state the vnmeasurable and inextricable gulfe of their couetousnes was such that no words can expresse it For they got diuerse kindes of liuings that do not well stand together they became Monkes and Canons Regulars and Seculars and vnder one habit possessed the liuings of all religious orders and professions not 2. or 3. 10. or 20. but a hundred 2. hundred yea sometimes 4. hundred or more and those not small and poore but the best and fattest that could be gotten Gerson speaking of the incroaching of the Court of Rome writeth in this sort In processe of time the Pope drew many things to himselfe so that in the end vppon occasion giuen and taken which it is not needfull heere to rehearse almost the whole collation of liuings and iurisdiction of the Church rested in the Pope and his Court in such sort that scarce was there any Prelate found that had power to giue any the least benefice Together with these thinges concurred many fold exactions to maintaine the state of the Pope and Cardinals and whether there were not many fraudes abuses and symonies committed I referre to the iudgment of such as are of experience These things I haue therefore insisted vppon because happily it may seeme to some more expedient for the Vniuersall Church that all thinges should be brought backe to their auncient estate wherein they were in that Church that was in the Apostles times as much as conueniently might be the greater part of these iurisdictions being reiected which haue made the Church meerely brutish and carnall sauouring almost nothing of the things that concerne the saluation of soules not of them-selues but thorough the fault of such as abuse them or at the least that things should be brought to the state they were in in the time of Syluester or Gregory when euery Prelate was left to him-selfe in his owne jurisdiction and that part of the Church that was committed to his charge and the Pope held that which was his owne without soe many reseruations and so many great exactions for the maintenance of that Court and Head growing happily too great for the other states and parts of the body to beare So that as there were worthy men that conspiring with vs in matter of faith opposed themselues against errors and false opinions soe there wanted not that disliked and reproued the Popes incroaching tending to the dissoluing of the whole frame of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie and the ouerthrow of the forme of gouernment setled by Christ which is no lesse hurtfull then the bringing in of heresie and false Doctrine And this is that Babylonicall captiuity of which Grosthead complained and in respect of these confusions and not onely in respect of ill life as Maister Higgons vntruly telleth vs Bernard and other complained that the seruants of Christ serued Antichrist From the tyranny and vsurpations of the Pope soe much complayned of in the dayes of our Fathers let vs come to abuses and superstitious obseruations remoued by vs and see whether they that went before vs will not giue testimonie to that which wee haue done And first to begin with the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud the first abuse in the celebration of that Sacrament disliked by vs is the mangling of it and giuing it to the Lay people onely in one kinde Touching the ministration of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is euident sayth Cassander that all other Churches of the World euen vnto this day and that the Roman or West Church for more then a thousand yeares in the solemne publike and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament gaue both kindes to all the members of the Church The same doth Rhenanus proue at large writing vppon Tertullian and sheweth that for feare of shedding the Challices wherein the consecrated wine was and out of which the people were to drinke the bloud of CHRIST had certaine pipes of siluer Afterwards in processe of time the consecrated breade was dipped into the wine and soe giuen to the people that they might receiue the whole Sacrament But this kinde of dipping Micrologus sayth Ordo Romanus condemneth and therefore prescribeth that on Good fryday when there is no consecrating but a receiuing of the mysticall breade that was consecrated the day before they should by saying the Lords Prayer and dipping the body of our Lord into Wine not consecrated consecrate the same that soe the people might bee partakers of the whole Communion which thinge were superfluous if the body of our Lord kept from the day before and soe dipped might suffice for a full and entire Communion and he sheweth that Iulius the Pope writing to the Bishoppes of Aegypt condemned this kind of dipping and commaunded them to giue the bread and wine apart as Christ did institute yet in time they proceeded farther and gaue the Sacrament onely in one kinde to the people which custome when some condemned the Councels of Constance and Basill thought good to confirme and allow yet so that the Bohemians vppon certaine agreements were permitted to haue the communion in both kindes and it is reported of Pope Martin chosen in the Councell of Constance that hee went home from the Councell and ministred the communion in both kindes to diuerse not of the Cleargy onely but of the Laitie also VValdensis also testifieth that heere in England some deuout men of the Laitie were permitted to communicate in both kindes in his time and Cassander assureth vs that all the best men that professed them-selues to bee Catholiques especially such as were conuersant in reading the ancient writers and monuments of antiquity vppon great reason desired to haue the Communion in both kindes The next abuse was that of priuate Masses I haue shewed already that the name of Masse was giuen to the holy Sacrament for that all non-communicants were dismissed and all that staid were to communicate And as Cassander fitly noteth
those things which euery one that hath saluted the Schooles doth know The vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ sayth Cardinall Caietan is to be considered vel quantum ad relationem quam significat vel quantū ad coniunctionem in personâ ad quam consequitur quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum terra Vnio enim pro relatione est ens reale creatum Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ diuina cum consistat in vnitate que est inter naturam humanam personam filij Dei est in genere seu ordine Substantia non est aliquid Creatum sed Creator quod ex eo constat quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam vnumquodque per illudmet per quod est Ens est Vnum c. Bc per hoc natura humana in Christo quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae oportet quod illud unum esse in quo indivisae sunt natura diuina humana in Christo sit esse unum substantiale divinum verè sic est quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae Substantia est Deus est quia verbum Dei est Vnà eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina in natura humana consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur The summe of that he saith is this for I will not stand exactly to English his wordes that the vnion betweene the nature of God and Man in CHRIST in respect of that being of actuall existence and subsistence wherein they are conioyned which is the same and common to them both to wit the subsistence of the Sonne of God communicated to the nature of man prevented that it should not haue any created or finite subsistence of it owne is no finite or created thing but infinite and diuine but in respect of the attaining of the same in time and the relation of dependance the humane nature hath vpon the Eternall Word it is finite and therefore whereas there are two kindes of grace in Christ the one of vnion the other habituall the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing but the former in respect of the thing giuen which is the personall subsistence of the Son of God bestowed vpō the nature of man is infinite though the passiue mutatiō of the nature of man lifted vp to the personal being of the Son of God the relation of dependance it hath on it be finite in the number of created things From that which hath beene said it may be concluded vnavoydably that the humanity of Christ in respect of personall vnion and in that being of actuall existence or subsistence which it hath which is infinite and diuine is euery-where as God himselfe is euery-where But saith Higgons there is an vnion Hypostatical betweene the soule body all the parts of it yet is not the foot or hand euery where where the soule is which is whole intire in euery part because it is not in the head The poore fellow I see hath yet learned but a little Diuinity and that maketh him thus to talke at randome For howsoeuer the comparison of the soule and body be brought to expresse the personall vnion in Christ yet it is very defectiue as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth First because the body and soule are imperfit natures Secondly because they concurre to make one nature Thirdly because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath but both depend on a third subsistence which is that of the whole but in the mysterie of the Incarnation the Eternall Word subsisting perfitly in it selfe draweth vnto it the nature of man so that the humanity of Christ hauing the same actuall existence that the Eternall Word hath must needes bee in respect of the same being whore-soeuer the Word is But there is no necessitie that each part of the body should be where-soeuer the soule is which is intirely in the whole body and intirely in euery part because the body and the parts of it haue neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soule hath But saith Higgons the properties of the diuine nature are by vertue of the personal vnion attributed to the persō in concreto not to the humane nature in abstracto so that though the Man Christ may be said to be euery-where yet the humanity cannot For answere to this obiection wee must note that the communication of properties is of two sorts the first is the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person from which nature soeuer it be denominated The second is the reall communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man not formally and in it selfe but in supposito in the person of the Sonne of GOD bestowed on it in which sense Bellarmine confesseth that the glory of GOD and all power both in Heauen and in earth are giuen to the humane nature of CHRIST Non in ipsa sed in supposito id est per gratiam unionis And so the Diuines of Germany doe say the humanity of CHRIST is euery-where in the being of subsistence cōmunicated to it the Man CHRIST properly and formally By this which hath beene said the intelligent reader I doubt not will easily perceiue the folly of silly Higgons who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresie which is the resolued determination of all the principall Schoole-men and best Diuines that euer treated distinctly of the personall vnion of the two natures in Christ. Yet as if all were cleare for him and against Mee encouraged by his good successe in this particular hee proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament perswading himselfe hee shall be able to find such and so many essentiall differences therein as neither I nor any man else shall euer be able to reconcile whereas notwithstanding if he had beene so much conuersant in the workes of Zanchius as hee pretendeth hee might haue found in him a most godly and learned discourse touching this point wherein all that hee or any of his companions can say is answered already and the Diuines of Germany and those other in shew opposite in such sort reconciled that our Aduersaries if any thing would satisfie them might lay their handes on their mouthes and be silent In this discourse first hee sheweth that there is no question touching the preparation of them that desire to bee worthy partakers of this heauenly banquet neither concerning the vse of this blessed Sacrament Secondly that it is agreed that the very body and blood of Christ are to be receiued by such as desire to be