Church they have a Communion Table and Christian Ministers and Christian people who are there to celebrate the memorie of Christs bodily sacrifice and to offer up the sacrifice of praier praise and thankesgiving and such other spiritual sacrifices as belong to Christian Ministers and Christian people to offer But none of these things doe prove anie bodilie sacrifice of Christ to be actuallie and reallie performed in the Sacrament yea if that in the Sacrament were his verie bodilie sacrifice what was or needed that which was performed on the Crosse the next day or what name will you give unto it Was not that which was performed on the Crosse the verie true Propitiatorie bodilie sacrifice You cannot denie but it was What other thing then can this Sacrament be but a Sacrament that is a similitude representation and remembrance of that propitiatorie bodilie sacrifice of Christ once done and performed in his owne person upon the Crosse for all the Elect 4 But you alledge that Christ having taken the bread said This is my Body Howbeit you should consider withall that after that he had taken the Cup he said likewise This is my bloud and yet for all that was not the verie Cup his verie bloud If then in these words ye admit as yee doe a figure or figurative speech why should yee not likewise in the other words of This is my body admit a figure or figurative speech Yea if by reason of these words This is my Body you will inferre that the verie substance of the bread is changed into the verie substance of the natural body of Christ which change yee therefore call Transubstantiation then may I by force of these words uttered of the Cup This is my bloud inferre likewise that the verie substance of the Cup is changed into the verie substance of the natural blood of Christ or if you will take the words as they be recited by S. Paul and S. Luke namely thus This Cup is the new Testament in my blood I may aswell conclude that the verie substance of the Cup is turned and changed into the verie new Testament or new Covenant which were verie absurd Wee grant that the bread is Christs bodie and the wine is his blood in a Sacramental phrase and sacramentally but not litterally and substantially or by waie of Transubstantiation as yee most strangely imagine So that the Argument appeareth to bee fond and vaine when men reason thus Christ said of the consecrated Bread that it is his bodie Ergo it is his Bodie naturallie substantiallie and by way of Transubstantiation For this is more then ever CHRIST spake and it may bee as indeed it is his Bodie otherwise namely Sacramentally Figurativelie and Significatively And so also doe the ancient Fathers themselves expresly declare and expound it as namely Tertullian saith thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei This is my bodie that is saith he a figure of my bodie And S. Augustine saith likewise Non dubitabit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui The Lord doubted not to say this is my bodie when he gave a signe of his bodie And yet wee grant that after consecration there is a change as the ancient Fathers also affirme but that is as touching the use and end and not as touching the substance For that which was before common bread and common wine is now after consecration become sacramental bread and sacramental wine signifying and figuring out unto us another thing namely the bread doth then signifie and figure out unto us the bodie of Christ which was broken and crucified for us and the wine signifieth figureth out unto us the blood of Christ which was powred out and shed for us So that the Bread and the Wine which in common and ordinarie use serve onely for sustenance of the bodie now after consecrasion signifie and represent unto us that which is the verie true foode of our soules and the sustenance of them to eternal life and doe import unto us that as verily as wee receive the Bread and Wine outwardly with our bodilie mouth so verily and certainely doe wee also receive Christ Iesus and the benefite of his death and passion inwardly by our faith which is the mouth of the soule For as bodily meate must have a bodily mouth to receive it so that which is spiritual meat and sustenance for the soule must have a spiritual mouth to receive it by And this is that eating of Christs flesh drinking of his blood which is spoken of in S. Iohns Gospell when hee is thus received and applied not by a carnal or corporal but by a spiritual mouth namely by faith For whereas some in that sixt Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell hearing Christ speaking of eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood said it was an hard speech grew offended at it Christ to remove all that conceited hardnesse and offence taken at those his words answered and said that It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speake unto you are spirit and life So that yee must take the words which Christ there spake unto them concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood not litterally grosly and carnally as the Capernaits did but in a spiritual sense and meaning And so doth S. Augustine in divers places tell you that they are to be expounded For he saith expreslie that Credere in eum est manducare To beleeve in Iesus Christ is in that place of S. Iohn to eate his flesh Yea to shew that the words bee not to be taken litterallie or carnallie but figuratively the same S. Augustine giveth this reason saying that otherwise by commanding to Eate the flesh of a man and to drinke his blood he should seeme to command an heinous or wicked thing Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni dominica esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit It is therefore saith he a figure or figurative speech commanding that we must communicate with the Lords passion sweetly profitably keep in memory that His flesh vvas crucified and wounded for us When he saith expreslie that it is a figure or figurative speech what doubt should yee make of it But yet further upon the 98. Psalme hee bringeth in Christ speaking thus to his Disciples Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis â—ibituri illum sanguinem quem fusâ—ri suâ—t qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi Spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Vnderstand yee spiritually that which I have spoken yee are not to eate this very bodie which yee see and to drinke that blood which they shall shed which shall crucifie mee It is a Sacrament that I
Sacrament in remembrance of that his death and passion For whereas in Matth. 26.26 it is said that when Christ had taken bread hee blessed S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul all three of them as it were expounding what that meaneth in steede of those words hee blessed doe say that Hee gave thankes Mar. 14 22. Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 By the word blessing then mentioned in S. Mâ—thew is meant Thankesgiving as by conferring him with the other three doth plainely appeare Yea this doth also appeare even by S. Mathew himselfe For whereas S. Mathew saith That Iesus tooke the Bread and when hee had blessed hee brake it and gave it c. hee saith likewise that hee tooke the Cup and when hee had given thankes hee gave it c. Mat. 26.26.27 thereby shewing that to blesse in S. Mathew and to give thankes is all one And this also serveth well to declare and expound those other words of S. Paul concerning the Cup in 1. Cor 10.16 where he saith thus The Cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ He calleth it the Cup of blessing which we blesse saith Chrysostome because when wee have it in our hands with admiration and a certaine horrour of that unspeakeable gift wee praise and blesse Him for that hee hath shed his blood that wee should not remaine in errour and hath not onely shed it but made us all partakers of it And so doth also Photius and OEcumenius expound those words The Cup of blessing which vvee blesse that is say they vvhich having in our hands vvee blesse Him vvho hath gratiously given us his blood that is vvee give him thankes Iustin Martyr toward the end of his 2. Apologie saith thus VVee receive vvith the action of thankesgiving the consecrated meaâ—e blessed by prayer S. Augustine in his third Booke of the Trinitie Cap. 4. saith VVee call that the bodie and blood of Christ Iesus vvhâ—ch vvee receive for the health of our soules it being taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayer And Gregorie the first Bishop of Rome in his 7. Booke of Epistles Epist. 63. saith that The Apostles did consecrate by prayer Yea Pope Innocentius the third also in his third Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse doth himselfe hold that Christ did not consecrate by these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie but that hee had consecrated before those words were uttered Consecration then in a Sacrament is of no such nature operation or force as to make anie change or alteration in the substance of a thing but onely in the qualitie use or end And this you may verie clearely and demonstrativelie perceive by the vvater consecrated and applied in Baptisme for before it be consecrate to that use it is but common and ordinarie water But after it is consecrate it is then become another thing namely a sacred signe of the washing and cleansing wee have by Christ and yet neverthelesse it is still water as touching the substance of it as it was before although in the qualitie and use it bee altered So likewise is it of bread and wine in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper before Consecration it is but ordinarie and common bread and wine but after Consecration they are become holie signes of the bodie and blood of Christ and yet are they still bread and wine as touching the substance of them as before though they bee thus altered in the use and qualitie And so saith Ambrose Sunt quae erant in aliud commutantur They are the same things still for matter and substance vvhich they vvere before and yet be changed into another thing in respect of the use and qualitie An example for better explications sake and to take away all doubt in this matter he giveth in a man before he be consecrate and sanctified and after he is sanctified Tu ipse eras c. Thou thy selfe vvast faith he before thou vvast sanctified but thou vvast an old Creature But after thou vvast sanctified or consecrated thou begannest to be a nevv Creature So that he is the same man still as touching matter and substance after his consecration or sanctification that hee was before albeit in qualitie hee bee thus altered and changed And this also witnesseth S. Chrysostome Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in illo remanserit The bread after it is sanctified or consecrated hath this dignity to bee called the Lords Bodie although saith he the nature of bread still remaine in it Theodoret likewise most plainelie telleth us that Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt a natura sua manet enim in priori substantia figura forma The mystical signâ—s after sanctification or consecration doe not depart from their ovvne nature for they still remaine in their former substance figure and forme Yea even Gelatius himselfe a Bishop of Rome saith also that after consecration Non desinit esse substantia panis natura vini There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread and the nature of vvine These so direct and expresse speeches and most evident testimonies of the ancient times concurring with the Scriptures bee they not sufficient to satisfie all that bee reasonable and equal christians that there is no transubstantiation in this Sacrament or real bodily presence of Christ to the bodily Mouth of the Receiver For that there is a real bodilie presence of Christ to bee apprehended by the mouth of the Soule that is by the faith of the Receiver is a thing granted and so affirmed by S. Augustine who expreslie saith that Faith is the mouth vvherby vvee eat and drinke Christ and the hand vvhich vve stretch to heaven to lay hold upon him sitting there And so saith S Ambrose also Fidei tactus est quâ— tangitur Christus It is by faith that vvee touch Christ. Yea this is so cleare as that the verie Church of Rome it selfe in ancient and former times beleeved heerein as wee doe as is manifest at large in the second distinction of Consecration and in the glosse likewise upon the Canon hoc est where it is said that the consecrated bread is called the Bodie of Christ Non propriè sed impropriè nec rei veritate sect significante mysterio Not properly but improperly and not in the truth of the thing but in a mysterie signifying it Thus then as touching this point it is more then evident that Rome is departed from that shee was in former times But hence arose moreover their adoration of the bread at their elevation wherein most grosse Idolatrie is committed inasmuch as it still remaineth Bread after consecration as you see And I wonder they tremble not at this their most horrible Idolatrie so often as they thinke upon it or use it For even the rudest and most barbarous Heathens were never
such grosse Idolaters as to worship a peece of â—read for God Yea even that Heathen man Cicero could say Quem tam amentem esse putas qui id quo vescâ—tur Deum creda esse VVhom doe you thinke to be so mad as to beleeve that which he eateth to be God Is it not then high time for all that love their owne salvation utterly to forsake that monstrous and Idolatrous Church of Rome which is become thus extreamely degenerate and deformed 6 But the Popish Church hath yet further mangled and maimeâ— this sacrament of the Lords supper most audaciously and Sacrilegiously in that contrarie to the Institution of Christ and practise of the Apostolicke primitive Church it depriveth the Laie people of receiving anie consecrated wine As though the Laie people might not receive aswell the consecrate wine as the consecrate bread Did not Christ say Drinke yee all of this and doth not S. Paul shew directly that the Laie people in his time did aswell drinke of that Cup as eate of that Bread Yea the late Councell of Constance doth confesse that in the Primitive Church the Laie people did communicate in both kindes and received aswell the wine as the bread and yet for all that doe they there decree against it Must not this needs bâ— the spirit of Antichrist which dareth thus in their Councells to contradict and decree against the Institutions of Christ and the manifest and confessed practise of the primitive Church For feare of spilling some of them say the Laie people may not receive the consecrated wine As though the Priest might not also sometimes spill it upon some accident aswell as they or as though the like inconvenience of letting fall of the consecrated bread by some accident might not aswell bee feared But how commeth it to passe that the Popish Councell and Church taketh upon them to bee herein wiser then Christ and all his Apostles and then the Primitive churches For Christ ordained and so the Apostolicke and Primitive churches practised and observed that the Laie people should aswell drinke of the consecrated wine as eate of the consecrated bread without anie such feare of inconvenience or inconveniences as the Popish church hath sithence that time found out devised But they say that per concomitantiam by a concomitancie forsooth the blood is included in the bodie of Christ so that if the lay people receive the bread which say they after consecration is the verie natural bodie of Christ they do therein withall receive the blood of Christ because in the bodie say they the blood also is included And thus hath one error begotten another with them as is indeed the fashion of all errors to do for Vno absurdo dato sequuntur infinita But if this their doctrine of concomitancie be true then by the same reason also it may suffice the Priest to receive likewise the consecrated bread onely without the wine And why then doth the Priest drinke of the consecrated wine for is not the blood of Christ per concomitantiam by their concomitancie aswell included in the bread which they say is the body of Christ to him as to the lay people Can anie tolerable or allowable reason be yeelded by your Priests or Church for these things May they not then all bee ashamed thus grosly to abuse and delude the world But now if that which is confessed to bee the Primitive and Apostolike Church administred the Lords supper to Laie people in both kinds namely aswell in wine as in bread How can anie suppose the Popish church which hath decreed and observeth the cleane contrarie to be herein like unto that Primitive and Apostolicke Church And if that primitive and Apostolicke Church were as questionlesse it was guided by the holie Ghost the Spirit of Truth must not your Priests Teachers and Church observing teaching and decreeing the contrarie needs bee supposed â—o be led not by that but by another spirit And what other spirit then can it be but the spirit of Error of opposition to Christ even the spirit of Antichrist Yea farre degenerate even in this point also is the Church of Rome from that it was in the daies of Pope Gelasius in whose time it was decreed that All they should be excommunicated that would receive but in one kinde 7 But yet a further wound also hath the Papacy given to this Sacrament of the Lords Supper by diverting and turning it from a communion of the faithfull into a private Masse or into such an action as wherein the Priest eates and drinkes alone without anie Communicants with him the people onely looking on Did Christ thus celebrate his Supper alone and did the rest that were his Disciples onely looke on and not communicate Wee know that Christ willeth them both to eate and to drinke at that Table and not to bee lookers on onely And so in the Primitive and Apostolicke Churches not the Pastor alone but the people also together with him did communicate And in verie deede what is more absurd then to bid men to a Supper to looke on onelie and neither to eate nor drinke S. Chrysostome complaineth of this corruption beginning to creepe in in his time O custome saith hee O presumption In vaine is the daily Sacrifice offered in vaine doe wee stand at the Altar seeing no bodie communicateth And a little after hee saith thus The Lord saith these things to us all who stand by heree unwisely and rashly for everie one that partakes not of the Mysteries is unwise and rash in standing by And hee addeth further saying Tell mee If a man that is bidden to a feast wash his hands aâ—d be placed at the table and yet eates not doth hee not wrong him that â—ad him vvere it not better that such a one were not present So thou art present thou hast sung the Hymne and in that thou hast not retyred thy selfe with them that are unworthy thou hast made profession that thou art of the number of those that are vvorâ—hie Hovv then dost thou stay and not partake ef the Table thou art therefore unvvorthy also to partake of the Prayers Yea the rule even of the Church of Rome it selfe in ancient time said to bee Pope Agapets which is Dist. 2. de Consecra Can. peracta is delivered in these words VVhen Consecration is finished all that vvill not bee put out of the Church dore must Communicate for so the Apostles ordained and so the Church of Rome observeth Marke well these words for thereby you see how farre differing at this day the deformed and new Church of Rome is in this point also from that it was in former and ancient time But againe can anie be so besotted as to thinke that onely by looking on hee communicateth or that by the eating and drinking of another as namelie of the Priest himselfe can bee fed or nourished Can the eating or drinking of another preserve your life if
Crosse Your selves againe doe say that this bodily offering up of Christ in your Masse is unbloudie and consequently hath in it no effusion of bloud whereupon it must needs be granted that therefore it cannot possibly be a propitiatorie sacrifice or take away the sinnes of men For the Scripture saith expressely that without effusion of bloud there is no remission of sinnes But beside all this there is also no other Priest appointed of God for the offering up of Christ Iesus in a bodily sacrifice but Christ Iesus himselfe only who therefore did performe it in his owne most sacred person and is also the only Priest according to the order of Melchisedech For yee must be put in minde that the Scripture mentioneth not Priests plurally according to the order of Melchisedech as though there were or might be manie or sundrie according to that order but it mentioneth onely One according to that Order affirming this one to be Iesus Christ as the Epistle to the Hebrewes manifestly declareth Yea verie plainely doth that Epistle shew that though there were in the Old Testament under the Levitical and Aronical Priesthood many that were Priests in succession one after another the death of the one causing the other so to succeede yet is it not so in the New Testament under that Priesthood which is according to the Order of Melchisedech where is shewed that Christ Iesus who is the only Priest according to that Order hath neither Vicars nor successors in that his Priesthood nor possibly can have because himselfe never dieth but liveth and continueth a Priest for ever according to that order For which cause it is there further said directly that he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such a Priesthood as doth not passe goe or is convaied from him to anie other Seeing then there neither be nor ought to be anie moe Priests according to the Order of Melchisedech but only One which is Christ Iesus and that this Christ Iesus was in bodily sacrifice to be offered also but Once and not oftner and that himselfe is also the sole and onely Priest allowed and appointed of God to make that bodily oblation which bodily oblation of his is also only propitiatorie How intolerably blasphemous and abominable be and must needs be those Popish Priests that dare arrogate to themselves that particular honor office place and person of Iesus Christ and say that they offer him up in a bodily manner and that often and that their sacrifice of the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice We know that Christ instituted a Sacrament in bread and wine in commemoration and remembrance of his bodie crucified and his bloud shed for our sinnes But that bodily sacrifice of his was not performed by anie but by himsefe nor was it done at this time of his instituting of this Sacrament but afterward when actually and in verie deed he made that sacrifice of himselfe upon the Crosse and said Coâ—summatum est It vvas then finished And therefore when Christ said at his last Supper to his Apostles and consequently to the rest of his Ministers their successors Hoc facite c. Doe this in remembrance of me hee bad them to administer that Sacrament in such maner and sort as he did it but hee did not thereby make them Priests to offer him up in a bodily and propitiatorie sacrifice as is by Popish Priests most impiously and absurdly suggested and surmised And yet it is granted that ancient Fathers do cal this supper of the Lord a sacrifice but they so call it a sacrifice in respect it is a memorial of that bodily sacrifice of Christ performed upon the Crosse as even Peter Lombard himselfe expressely telleth you As also it may be called a sacrifice in respect of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiving and other spiritual sacrifices which at these times the godly offer up unto God For which cause those ancient Fathers doe also call it an Eucharist that is a Thanksgiving noting it even thereby also to be not a Propitiatorie but an Eucharistical sacrifice A memory of this sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse vve have received saith Eusebius to celebrate at the Lords Table by the signes of his body and of his healthfull bloud according the divine Lawes of the New Testament Christ saith S. Augustine is our Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech vvho offered himselfe a sacrifice for our sinnes and hath commended the similitude of that sacrifice to be celebrated in the remembrance of his passion VVee keepe saith Theophilact a remembrance of the Lords death And againe VVee keepe a memory of that Oblation vvherein he offered himselfe Our high Priest saith Chrysostome is he vvhich offered the sacrifice that purgeth us c. But this vvhich vvee doe is done in remembrance of that vvhich was done by him for doe yee this saith Christ in remembrance of mee And againe he saith VVee celebrate the remembrance of a sacrifice By all which and sundrie other sayings which might be cited if need were out of ancient Fathers you may easily perceive that howsoever they call this Sacrament a sacrifice they meane it not to be anie Propitiatorie or Bodily sacrifice but that in the proper appellation it is rather to be termed as themselves here declare a similitude memorial or remembrance of that sacrifice of Christ which himselfe performed upon the Crosse. 2 And yet the Rhemists and other Popish Teachers say that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech specially in this respect of the sacrifice of his bodie and bloud instituted at his last supper in the formes of bread and wine in which things they say Melchisedech did sacrifice But first they cannot prove that Christ instituted this sacrament of his last supper to be his verie bodily sacrificing of himselfe yea it is before apparantly disproved for his verie bodily sacrifice was done only by himselfe upon the Crosse and that but once and that sacrifice only is propitiatory and no other And how is it possible that that which is a representation similitude remembrance and sacrament of that sacrifice should be the verie sacrifice it selfe But secondly why doe they or anie other talke of foâ—â—es of bread and wine for yee know that they were not the formes or accidents of bread and wine but verie substantial bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth to Abraham and his people for their refreshing after their battell and slaughter of the kings Yea if they had beene bare formes and accidents of bread and wine and not verie bread and wine in truth and in substance they would have given Abraham and his companie but verie small and slender refreshing This example therefore of Melchisedech in giving not the formes or accidents of bread and wine without the substance but verie bread and wine substantially to Abraham and his souldiers for their refreshing doth prove strongly
should bee termed Regeneration which is not the verie Regeneration it selfe but a signe and token of regeneration for the Regeneration it selfe is the renewing of the man to the Image of God wherin hee was at first created which is a thing begun to bee wrought in him in this life not by the verie externall act of Baptisme performed and administred but inwardlie by the operation of the holy Ghost And likewise it ought for the same cause to seem nothing strange to anie that the Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is called his bodie when as neverthelesse it is not his verie natural and substantiall bodie but a figure signe and token of that his bodie As for the reason which yee draw from the omnipotencie or almightinesse of Christ whereby hee is able as yee saie to make his verie essentiall and naturall bodie out of bread you must first proove that it is his will to have it so made before ye dispute of his power or omnipotencie For no man doubteth but that he can doe manie things which neverthelesse hee doth not doe nor will doe It is an Axiome in the Art and rule of reasoning that a Posse ad Esse non valet argumentum and therefore that God can doe such a thing and such a thing ergo hee hath done it is no good argument But that you may the better conceive the weakenesse of this your argument grounded upon Gods omnipotencie in this matter take another like unto it in this sort Christ saith of the Cup This is my blood And he by his omnipotencie is aswell able to make the very Cup his verie essentiall and natural blood as the bread his bodie ergo the verie Cup is his verie essentiall and natural blood Againe Christ saith that hee is a Vine and that hee is also Bread and by his omnipotencie hee is aswell able to make himselfe a verie Materiall Vine or verie materiall Bread as he is to make bread his natural bodie ergo hee is a verie Materiall Vine or verie Materiall Bread These arguments bee like yours when you say thus Christ saith the Bread is his body and he is by his omnipotencie able to make it his verie essential and natural bodie Ergo it is his verie essential and natural bodie I hope by this time yee see the vanitie and absurditie of this maner of reasoning But you still urge the words of Christ and say that hee saith It is his bodie and wee must not say you make him a Liar and therefore it is his verie essential and natural bodie God forbid that anie of us should goe about to make Christ a liar who is all Truth and the teacher of all Truth neither doth anie of us go about it but we say that Christ is true in those his words but men speake more then is true when out of those words of his they teach and affirme that the bread is become by way of Transubstantiation his verie essential and natural bodie For Christ doth not say so that it is his verie essential and natural bodie by way of Transubstantiation as they inferre but his wordes are onelie that it is his bodie And it may bee and is his bodie as I said before though it be not his bodie by way of Transubstantiation For if it be as it is his bodie figuratively sacramentally and significatively I trust his words are found true enough without anie such Popish grosse supposition Because Christ saith the Cup is his bloud shall he therefore be supposed a liar or untrue except the verie material Cup be beleeved in verie deed to be his verie essential and natural bloud by way of Transubstantiation or because Christ saith that he is a Vine shall he by and by be concluded to be false or untrue unlesse it be beleeved that therefore he is turned and transubstantiated into a verie natural and substantial Vine But moreover if it be Christs natural and substantial bodie in verie deed as you say it is shew us some way how we may be induced to beleeve it or how it may be proved or appeare to be so you answer that Christ his body is there miraculously But I replie againe that if it be there miraculouslie it must be there visibly and so appeare to the outward senses for it is of the propertie of everie miracle to be visible and to appeare to be so to the eie to the rest of the outward senses as when Christ turned water into wine it did appeare to be no longer water but wine to the outward senses So likewise when Moses rod was turned into a serpent it appeared to the eie outward senses to be no longer a Rod but a Serpent If therefore the bread be turned as yee say miraculouslie into the verie natural bodie of Christ it must likewise appeare visiblie to the eie and to the outward senses so to be namelie no appearance of bread must anie longer be there and on the other side onlie the verie natural bodie of Iesus Christ must appeare to the eye and the outward senses of the Receiver but cleane contrariwise there is no natural bodie of Christ Iesus appearing to the eie and outward senses of the receiver after consecration but bread onlie ergo the verie natural bodie of Iesus Christ is not there miraculouslie as Papists most absurdly affirme But although they cannot shew Christ his verie natural bodie to be there by way of transubstantiation yet say they they doe beleeve it to be so and they say withall that it is as well to be beleeved as the creation of the world the resurrection of the dead a virgin to beare a childe namely Christ Iesus such like But whilst they speake thus I pray let them tell mee can their supposed real bodilie presence of Christ in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation be as well proved by the Scriptures as the creation of the world the resurrection of the dead the bearing of a childe by a virgin or as the rest of the things which they meane and are directlie found in the Scriptures I am sure it cannot for all that can be said for your Transubstation hath beene examined againe and againe but no such matter can be proved or appeare Why then doe they match those things together which be nothing like Yea why be anie so unwiselie confident as to say they beleeve and verilie beleeve this real bodilie presence of Christ in the Sacrament by way of transubstantiation when they can no way shew it by anie maner of proofe or probabilitie What will men beleeve unremoveably beleeve things without wit sense reason or religion for which they have no maner of colour or warrant at all in Scripture from God or his word If they be such credulous people they may beleeve if they will anie thing whatsoever be it never so incredible or absurd for if their will and fancie shall be held for a sufficient râ—â—son who
wrought in anie sort by mans hand should be worshipped Adoratione latriae with that worship that is properlie belonging to God himselfe May not those men that be thus enamored with Images and that hold these opinions be therein supposed to be as senselesse as the verie Images themselves For what is this else but to worship stockes and stones and the worke of mens hands with divine honour And can there be a greater or a more grosse Idolatrie committed Yea S. Augustine noteth it as the heresie of the Carpocratians that they vvorshipped the Images of Iesus and of Paul Whereas some therefore say that the honor which is given to the signe or Image doth ever redound and is given to the Prototypon to that whose signe or Image it is and consequentlie that the honour given to the image of God and of Christ is honour done to God himselfe and to Christ himselfe this appeareth not to be true Yea even amongst men if the respect that is yeelded to the picture or Image of a friend or of anie great man shall be accepted as honour due to the man himselfe whose picture and Image it is intended to be it must be with these conditions viz. first that it be a right and true picture and image of the man for if it be nothing like him but more like some other man or some other creature hee hath no reason to take it for his picture or image much lesse to thinke himselfe thereby honored Secondlie it must have an allowance or at least no disallowance in respect of him to whose honour he intendeth to make it if he meane that the other shall accept and take it as an honour done unto him for if he to whose honor it is intended disallow it or signifie his minde that he will not have his picture drawne or his image made to be so honoured it can be no honour acceptable to him in that case but it will rather move offence and be ill taken if it be done How much more then will God be offended with these things For beside that no man can make a true and perfect picture or Image of him that is both God and Man God hath further directlie disallowed and forbidden these Images and all Images and Similitudes whatsoever to be vvorshipped In Gregories time Images were not allowed to be worshipped yea Pope Gregory himselfe well liked of Serenus Bishop of Massilia in this point viz. for that he forbad Images to be vvorshipped As for that second Councell of Nice therefore which was after Pope Gregories time gathered under Irene the Empresse inasmuch as it was assembled to overthrow the former godlie Councels of Constantinople and Ephesus which decreed against Images and the worshipping of them it ought to carrie no credite or esteeme and the rather because that second Councell of Nice was also afterward againe further condemned in the West by another Councell held at Frankford Which thing Carolus Magnus himselfe in his booke made against Images doth also testifie The same is likewise testified by sundrie other Authors Yea Epiphanius in his daies would not allow so much as an Image of Christ or of anie Saint to be at all in Churches for comming to a Church at Anablatha and there seeing in a Vaile an Image painted as it vvere of Christ or of some Saint he affirmed it to be contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures to have anie such Image in a Christian Church and therefore caused it to be taken down And the Councell of Eliberis also decreed the like against the having of Images in Churches How much more then would these men have condemned the Worship of the verie Images themselves 6 A sixt point of Idolatrie in the Popish Church is that they worship the Crosse also and pray unto it saying O Crux ave Spes unica hoc passionis tempore auge pijs iustitiam reisque dona veniam Hayle O Crosse our onely hope in this time of the passion Increase righâ—eousnesse to the godâ—y and give pardon to the guilty Yea Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor as they call him saith the Crosse is to be worshipped with latria and giveth two reasons of this Adoration saying thus Crux Christi in qua Christus crucifixus est tum propter repraesentationem tum propter Membrorum Christi contactum latria adoranda est The Crosse of Christ vvhereon Christ vvas crucified both because of the representation and also for that it touched the members of Christ is to be vvorshiped with latria that is with that vvorship that is proper and due unto God But be these reasons sufficient in this case The Gospel was so cleerely preached to the Galathians as if there had beene a lively Image of Christ crucified set before their eies was therefore the verie Ministerie or Preaching of the Gospel whereby Christ crucified was thus depainted out to be adored or worshipped with that worship that is due and proper to God The breaking of the Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth represent unto us the breaking crucifying of Christ his Body upon the Crosseâ— and the pouring out of the wine in the same Sacrament representeth also the shedding or effusion of his Bloud upon the same Crosse for us shall therefore the breaking of the Bread or the pouring out of the vvine be adored and worshipped with that worship that is due unto God And yet is the Preaching and Ministerie of the Gospel as likewise the administration of the Sacraments of Gods owne institution but no institution commandement or warrant from him can be shewed for making a wooden Crosse or anie kind of Crosse to be a representatioÌ„ of Christ crucified And yet if such an institution could be shewed for the Crosse it followeth not that therfore it is to be worshipped with that worship that is proper and due unto God no more then VVater in Baptisme or Bread and VVine in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper are so to be worshipt although they be Gods institutions or no more then the Brazen Serpent which was also Gods institution in times past amongst the Iewes was therefore so to be worshipped What Is the vvooden Crosse or anie Crosse whatsoever become a God that it should thus be worshipped As for the other reason if because the Crosse touched Christ it be therefore to be worshipped why should not also the Nailes and the Crowne of Thornes and the Speare or Lance wherewith he was pierced be likewise so adored or worshipped or why should not Iudas Iscariot who likewise touched Christ betraying him with a Kisse and those wicked Iewes that apprehended and tooke him and that Woman also that vvashed Christs feet with her teares and wiped them with the haires of her head yea and the Pinnacle of the Temple whereon Christ was set and all those manie places of ground whereon Christ stood and all those sundrie persons which he touched and which
Gillebertus and Malachias and Christianus who were the Popes Legates here about 500. yeares agoe This Gillebertus an old acquaintance of Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury in the Prologue of his booke De usu ecclesiastico directed to the whole Clergie of Ireland writeth in this maner At the request yea and at the command of manie of you dearely beloved I indevoured to set downe in writing the canonical custome in saying of Houres and performing the Office of the whole Ecclesiasticall Order not presumptuously but in desire to serve your most godly command to the end that those diverse and schismaticall Orders wherewith in a maner all Ireland is deluded may give place to one Catholick and Romane Office For vvhat may bee said to be more undecent or schismaticall then that the most learned in one order should be made as a private and lay man in another mans Church These beginnings were presently seconded by Malachias in whose life written by Bernard wee reade as followeth The Apostolicall constitutions and the decrees of the holy Fathers but especially the customes of the holy Church of Rome did he establish in all Churches And hence it is that at this day the canonicall Houres are chanted and song therein according to the maner of the whole earth whereas before that this was not done no not in the citie it selfe the poore citie of Ardmagh he meaneth But Malachias had learned song in his youth and shortly after caused singing to be used in his owne Monasterie when as yet aswell in the citie as in the whole Bishoprick they eyther knew not or would not sing Lastly the work was brought to perfection when Christianus Bishop of Lismore as Legate to the Pope was President in the Councell of Casshell wherein a speciall order was taken for the right singing of the Ecclesiasticall Office and a generall act established that all divine offices of holy Church should from thenceforth be handled in all parts of Ireland according as the Church of England did observe them The statutes of which Councell were confirmed by the Regall authority of King Henry the second by whose mandate the Bishops that met therein were assembled in the yeare of our Lord 1172. as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth in his historie of the Conquest of Ireland And thus late was it before the Romane use was fully settled in this kingdome The publick Liturgie or service of the Church was of old named the Masse even then also when prayers only were said without the celebration of the holy Communion So the last Masse that S. Colme was ever present at is noted by Adamnanus to have beene vespertinalis Dominicae noctis Missa He dyed the midnight following whence the Lords day tooke his beginning 9º viz. Iunij anno Dom. 597. according to the account of the Romanes which the Scottish and Irish seeme to have begunne from the evening going before and then was that evening Masse said which in all likelyhood differed not from those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Leo the Emperour in his Tacticks that is to say from that which wee call Even-song or Evening prayer But the name of the Masse was in those dayes more specially applied to the administration of the Lords Supper and therefore in the same Adamnanus we see that Sacra Eucharistiae ministeria and Missarum solemnia the sacred ministerie of the Eucharist and the solemnities of the Masse are taken for the same thing So likewise in the relation of the passages that concerne the obsequies of Columbanus performed by Gallus and Magnoaldus we finde that Missam celebrare and Missas agere is made to be the same with Divina celebrare mysteria and Salutis hostiam or salutare sacrificium immolare the saying of Masse the same with the celebration of the divine mysteries and the oblation of the healthfull sacrifice for by that terme was the administration of the sacrament of the Lords Supper at that time usually designed For as in our beneficence and communicating unto the necessities of the poore which are sacrifices wherewith God is well pleased we are taught to give both our selves and our almes first unto the Lord and after unto our brethren by the will of God so is it in this ministerie of the blessed Sacrament the service is first presented unto God from which as from a most principall part of the dutie the sacrament it selfe is called the Eucharist because therein we offer a speciall sacrifice of praise thankesgiving alwayes unto God and then communicated unto the use of Gods people in the performance of which part of the service both the minister was said to give and the communicant to receive the sacrifice as well as in respect of the former part they were said to offer the same unto the Lord. For they did not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament as the Romanists doe now adayes but used the name of Sacrifice indifferently both of that which was offered unto God and of that which was given to and received by the communicant Therefore we read of offering the sacrifice to God as in that speech of Gallus to his scholler Magnoaldus My master Columbanus is accustomed to offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of salvation in brasen vessels Of giving the sacrifice to man as when it is said in one of the ancient Synods of Ireland that a Bishop by his Testament may bequeath a certain proportiō of his goods for a legacie to the Priest that giveth him the sacrifice and of receiving the sacrifice from the hands of the minister as in that sentence of the Synod attributed unto S. Patrick He who deserveth not to receive the sacrifice in his life how can it helpe him after his death and in that glosse of Sedulius upon 1 Cor. 11.33 Tarry one for another that is saith he untill you doe receive the sacrifice Whereby it doth appeare that the sacrifice of the elder times was not like unto the new Masse of the Romanists wherein the Priest doth eate and drinke alone the people being only lookers on but unto our Communion where all that are present at the holy action do eate of the Altar as well as they that serve the Altar Againe they that are communicants in the Romish sacrament receive the Eucharist in one kinde onely the Priest in offering of the sacrifice receiveth the same distinctly both by way of meate and by way of drinke which they tell us is chiefely done for the integritie of the Sacrifice and not of the Sacrament For in the Sacrifice they say the severall elements be consecrated not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or now is in heaven but the bread into his body apart as betrayed broken and given for us the wine into his blood apart as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes and dedication of the new Testament which
be conditions of his person as he was in sacrifice and oblation But our ancestours in the use of their Sacrament received the Eucharist in both kindes not being so acute as to discerne betwixt the things that belonged unto the integritie of the sacrifice of the sacrament because in verie truth they tooke the one to be the other Thus Bede relateth that one Hildmer an officer of Egfrid king of Northumberland intreated our Cuthbert to send a Priest that might minister the sacraments of the Lords body and blood unto his wife that then lay a dying and Cuthbert himselfe immediately before his owne departure out of this life received the communion of the Lords body and blood as Herefride abbat of the monasterie of Lindisfarne who was the man that at that time ministred the sacrament unto him made report unto the same Bede who elsewhere also particularly noteth that he then tasted of the cuppe Pocula degustat vitae Christique supinum Sanguine munit iter least anie man should think that under the formes of bread alone he might be said to have beene partaker of the body blood of the Lord by way of Concomitance which is a toy that was not once dreamed of in those dayes So that we need not to doubt what is meant by that which we reade in the booke of the life of Furseus which was written before the time of Bede that he received the communion of the holy body and blood and that he was wished to admonish the Pastors of the Church that they should strengthen the soules of the faithfull with the spirituall food of doctrine and the participation of the holy body and blood or of that which Cogitosus writeth in the life of S. Brigid touching the place in the Church of Kildare whereunto the Abbatesse with her maidens and widdowes used to resort that they might enjoy the banquet of the body and blood of Iesus Christ. which was agreeable to the practise not only of the Nunneries founded beyond the seas according to the rule of Columbanus where the Virgins received the body of the Lord and sipped his blood as appeareth by that which Ionas relateth of Domna in the life of Burgundofora but also of S. Brigid her selfe who was the foundresse of the monasterie of Kildare one of whose miracles is reported even in the later Legends to have happened when she was about to drinke out of the Chalice at the time of her receiving of the Eucharist which they that list to looke after may finde in the collections of Capgrave Surius and such like But you will say these testimonies that have beene alledged make not so much for us in proving the use of the communion under both kindes as they make against us in confirming the opinion of Transubstantiation seeing they all specifie the receiving not of bread and wine but of the body and blood of Christ. I answer that forasmuch as Christ himselfe at the first institution of his holy Supper did say expressely This is my body and This is my blood hee deserveth not the name of a Christian that will question the truth of that saying or refuse to speake in that language which hee hath heard his Lord and Master use before him The question onely is in what sense and after what maner these things must be conceived to be his body blood Of which there needed to be little question if men would be pleased to take into their consideration these two things which were never doubted of by the ancient and have most evident ground in the context of the Gospell First that the subject of those sacramentall propositions delivered by our Saviour that is to say the demonstrative particle THIS can have reference to no other substance but that which he then held in his sacred hands namely bread and wine which are of so different a nature from the body and blood of Christ that the one cannot possibly in proper sense be said to be the other as the light of common reason doth force the Romanists themselves to confesse Secondly that in the predicate or later part of the same propositions there is not mention made onely of Christs body and blood but of his body broken and his blood shedd to shew that his body is to be considered here apart not as it was borne of the Virgin or now is in heaven but as it was broken and crucified for us and his blood likewise apart not as running in his veynes but as shedd out of his body which the Rhemists have told us to be conditions of his person as he was in sacrifice and oblation And least we should imagine that his bodie were otherwise to be considered in the sacrament then in the sacrifice in the one alive as it is now in heaven in the other dead as it was offered upon the crosse the Apostle putteth the matter out of doubt that not only the minister in offering but also the people in receiving even as often as they eate this bread and drinke this cup doe shew the Lords death untill he come Our elders surely that held the sacrifice to be given and received for so we have heard themselves speake as well as offered did not consider otherwise of Christ in the sacrament then as he was in sacrifice and oblation If here therefore Christs body be presented as broken and livelesse and his blood as shedd forth and severed from his body and it be most certaine that there are no such things now really existent anie where as is confessed on all hands then must it follow necessarily that the bread and wine are not converted into these things really The Rhemists indeed tell us that when the Church doth offer and sacrifice Christ daily he in mysterie and sacrament dieth Further then this they durst not go for if they had said he died really they should thereby not only make themselves daily killers of Christ but also directly crosse that principle of the Apostle Rom. 6.9 Christ being raysed from the dead dyeth no more If then the bodie of Christ in the administration of the Eucharist be propounded as dead as hath bin shewed die it cannot really but only in mysterie and sacramēt how can it be thought to be contayned under the outward elements otherwise then in sacramēt mysterie and such as in times past were said to have received the sacrifice from the hand of the Priest what other body and blood could they expect to receive therein but such as was sutable to the nature of that sacrifice to wit mysticall and sacramentall Coelius Sedulius to whom Gelasius Bishop of Rome with his Synod of LXX Bishops giveth the title of venerable Sedulius and Hildephonsus Toletanus of the good Sedulius the Evangelicall poët the eloquent orator and the catholick writer is by Trithemius and others supposed to be the same with our Sedulius of Scotland or Ireland whose
Collections are extant upon S. Paules Epistles although I have forborne hitherto to use anie of his testimonies because I have some reason to doubt whether he were the same with our Sedulius or no. But Coelius Sedulius whatsoever countreyman he was intimateth plainly that the things offered in the Christian sacrifice are the fruit of the corne and of the vine Denique Pontificum princeps summusque Sacerdos Quis nisi Christus adest gemini libaminis author Ordine Melchisedech cui dantur munera semper Quae sua sunt segetis fructus gaudia vitis or as he expresseth it in his prose the sweet meate of the seed of vvheat and the lovely drinke of the pleasant vine Of Melchisedek according to whose order Christ and he onely was Priest our owne Sedulius writeth thus Melchisedek offered wine and bread to Abraham for a figure of Christ offering his body and blood unto God his father upon the Crosse. Where note that first hee saith Melchisedek offered bread and wine to Abraham not to God and secondly that he was a figure of Christ offering his body and blood upon the crosse not in the Eucharist But we saith he doe offer daily for a commemoration of the Lords passion once performed and our own salvation and elsewhere expounding those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me he bringeth in this similitude used before and after him by others He left a memory of himselfe unto us even as if one that were going a farre journey should leave some token with him whom he loved that as oft as he beheld it he might call to remembrance his benefites and friendshippe Claudius noteth that our Saviours pleasure was first to deliver unto his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood and afterwards to offer up the body it selfe upon the altar of the crosse thereby plainely distinguishing the sacrament from the body represented thereby and for the sacramentall relation betwixt the one and the other he yeeldeth this reason Because bread doth confirme the body and wine doth worke blood in the flesh therfore the one is mystically referred to the body of Christ the other to his blood Which doctrine of Claudius Scotus that the sacrament is in it owne nature bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ by mysticall relation was within fiftie or threescore yeares afterwards so fully maintayned by Iohannes Scotus in a booke that he purposely wrote of that argument that when it was alledged and extolled by Berengarius Pope Leo the ninth with his Bishops assembled in Synodo Vercellensi ano. Domi. 1050. which was 235. yeares after the time that Claudius wrote his commentaries upon S. Matthew had no other meanes to avoyde it but by flatt condemning of it Of what great esteeme this Iohn was with king Alfred may be seene in William of Malmesbury Roger Hoveden Matthew of Westminster and other writers of the English historie The King himselfe in the preface before his Saxon translation of S. Gregories Pastorall professeth that hee was holpen in that worke by Iohn his Masse-priest By whom if he did meane this Iohn of ours you may see how in those dayes a man might be held a Masse-priest who was farre enough from thinking that he offered up the very body and blood of Christ really present under the formes of bread and wine which is the onely Masse that our Romanists take knowledge of Of which wonderfull point how ignorant our elders were even this also may be one argument that the author of the book of the wonderful things of the holy Scripture who is accounted to have lived here about the yeare of our Lord DCLVII passeth this quite over which is now esteemed to be the wonder of all wonders And yet doth he professe that hee purposed to passe over nothing of the wonders of the Scripture wherein they might seeme notably to swerve from the ordinary administration in other things Only when he commeth to the apocryphall additions of Daniel he telleth us that what is reported touching the lake or denne and the carrying of Abackuk in the fable of Bel and the Dragon is not therefore placed in this ranke because these things have not the authoritie of divine Scripture as also when he commeth to the Maccabees In the books of the Maccabees saith he howsoever some wonderfull things be found which might conveniently be inserted into this ranke yet will vvee not weary our selves with any care thereof because we onely purposed to touch in some measure a short historicall exposition of the wonderfull things contayned in the divine Canon Which two last sentences I thought good not to pretermitt because thereby men may see that in the distinction of the apocryphall books from the Canonicall wee still retaine the tradition of our ancestours which the late Romanists have openly forsaken Who as they have increased the Canon of the divine Scriptures by addition of other books not received into that ranke by the ancient Church so have they augmented the number of the Sacraments by intruding into that reckoning five new ones to wit Confirmation Penance which carrieth sacramentall Confession and Absolution with it Matrimony Orders and Extreme Vnction Of the last of which I finde no mention at all of the next to that very frequent mention but no where as of a sacrament in anie of our writings that may appeare to have beene written before the Hildebrandine times Touching the rest Bernard reporteth that Malachias in his time which was after Hildebrands dayes did of the new institute the most wholsome use of Confession the sacrament of Confirmation and the contract of marriages all which he saith the Irish before were eyther ignoraÌ„t of or did neglect Which for the matter of Confession may receive som further confirmation froÌ„ the testimonie of Alcuinus who writing unto the Scottish or as other copies read the Gothish coÌ„mending the religious conversation of their laity who in the midst of their worldly employments were said to leade a most chaste life condemneth notwithstanding another custome which was said to have continued in that countrey For it is said quoth he that no man of the laâ—tie will make his confession to the Priests whom we beleeve to have received from the Lord Christ the power of binding and loosing together with the holy Apostles They had no reason indeed to hold as Alcuinus did that they ought to confesse unto a Priest all the sinnes they could remember but upon speciall occasions they did no doubt both publikely and privately make confession of their faults aswell that they might receive counsaile and direction for their recoverie as that they might be made partakers of the benefite of the keyes for the quieting of their troubled consciences Whatsoever the Gothish did herein sure we are that this was the practise of the ancient Scottish and Irish. So we reade of one Fiachna or Fechnauâ—
Redeemer and his satisfaction we make no satisfaction our selves for our sinnes to the Iustice of GOD. Howbeit yee are first of all to know that this doctrine and faith of ours concerning Christ his redemption and satisfaction all-sufficient made to Gods Iustice for our sinnes inferreth no such matter as licentiousnesse but the cleane contrarie For wee are redeemed not to the end to live dissolutely or carelesly but to the end wee should for so great and unspeakeable a benefite obey and serve God in holinesse and righteousnesse before him and that all the dayes of our life as the Scrâ—ptures teach And secondly as touching the truth of this matter Saint Peter telleth us that Christ his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree Againe S. Iohn saith that the blood of Iesus Christ the Sonne of God doth purge us from all sinne and clense us from all iniquity S. Paul also saith VVee have redemption through his blood even the remission of sins Yea this the Scriptures doe almost everie where teach and testifie How then can your conceit of mens satisfactions to Gods Iustice for sinnes be otherwise accounted of then as a thing apparantly iniurious to that satisfaction and redemption and consequently to that free and full discharge and remission of all our sinnes and of the guiltinesse and punishment thereto belonging which we have in Christ For guiltinesse being taken away the punishment also is taken away saith Tertullian And so also saith S. Augustine that Christ by taking upon him the punishment and not the fault hath done away both the fault and the punishment And in all reason it must be so that when a fault or sinne is forgiven the punishment thereto belonging is forgiven also for to what other end else is the fault or sinne forgiven and remitted But against this they alledge the example of King David and of other the children of God who notwithstanding that they had their sins forgiven them had neverthelesse afflictions chastisements sent them from God even in this life Whereunto they have beene often answered that God sendeth not these chastisements and afflictions upon his children to that end thereby to satisfie his wrath and iustice for their sinnes for his wrath is appeased and his Iustice satisfied in their behalfe another way namely in the passion and obedience of Iesus Christ but by that meanes to put them in remembrance of their sinnes formerly committed and to bring them to repentance for the same and to make them stand in more feare and awe of God for the time to come and to walke more warily circumspectly and with better obedience before him as the Psalmist declareth So that these be sent of God for other ends and purposes and come from him not as from an angrie and revengefull Iudge but out of his kinde provident care and fatherly affection and love toward them Which thing S. Paul also witnesseth shewing that these corrections and chastisements be sent upon them to the end they might thereby be advertised to call themselves and their sinnes to a better remembrance even so farre as to Iudge and condemne themselves for the same and so be admonished not to runne anie longer a riotous and wicked course with the damnable world The same is further testified in the Epistle to the Hebrewes for there it is said thus VVhom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every sonne that he receiveth And hee saith againe If yee endure chastening God offereth himselfe unto you as unto sonnes for vvhat sonne is it vvhom the father chasteneth not And againe he saith If therefore ye be vvithout correction vvhereof all sonnes are partakers then are ye bastards and not sonnes Moreover saith he vve have had the fathers of our flesh vvhich corrected us and wee gave them reverence should vvee not much more be in subiection unto the father of spirits that vvee might live for they verily for a few dayes chastened us after their owne pleasure but he chasteneth us for our profit that vve might be partakers of his holinesse The like speaketh S. Augustine saying Prosunt ista mala quae fideles piè perferunt c. These evils or afflictions vvhich faithfull people in godly wise suffer doe profite eyther to the amendment of their sinnes or for the exercise and triall of their righteousnesse or to shew the misery of this life That that life vvhere there shall be true and perpetuall blessednesse indeed both may more ardently be desired and more instantly be sought after It appeareth then that chastisements and afflictions be sent of God in this life upon his children out of his Love and not out of his furie and unappeased displeasure so that they serve not to anie such end as to have the severitie of his wrath and Iustice to be by such meanes satisfied and appeased yea how can the greatest afflictions or miseries that be or can be imagined in sinfull men during this life satisfie Gods heavie and infinite wrath and justice for sinnes Or how can they merit heaven and heavenly glorie when S. Paul himselfe saith expressely thus I suppose that the afflictions of this present time are not vvorthy of the glory that shall be shewed unto us But yet for all this such is the strength of error they strangely suppose that they doe Christ no wrong because it is through his merits as they say that they be enabled to merit and to make this satisfaction to Gods iustice for their sinnes Howbeit this is but a meere conceit and imagination For there is no word of God to warrant or prove it nay the Scripture teacheth that Christ died not for our good workes to make them able to merit at Gods hand but for our sinnes that they might be pardoned Againe it is said that Christ hath by himselfe and not by us or in our persons purged our sinnes He is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 platamentum propitiatio reconciliation and propitiation Yee are bought vvith a price saith S. Paul therefore glorifie yee God both in your bodie and in your spirit for they are Gods Christ is hee that paide this price for them as S. Peter also sheweth And therefore not VVee but Hee is affirmed to be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 price the price of Redemption paide for us and that we are for our parts Iustified gratis that is franckly and freely and for nothing by us paide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the redemption vvhich is in Christ Iesus and not in us or in our persons Yea in that Christ was to come downe from heaven and to be incarnate for this purpose and to suffer and so to satisfie Gods wrath and Iustice in our behalfe he sufficiently sheweth that none of us were able in our owne persons to performe so great a worke Yea they may by
a salve to all if all can take hold of him and apply him unto themselves as a Saviour by a true and lively faith But because all cannot doe this for none have this true lively and iustifying faith but Gods elect onely therefore he died efficiently that is his death was effectuall and beneficiall only to Gods Elect. Wherfore also well doth he distinguish whether it were Augustine or Prosper Qui magnitudinem pretii distinguit a proprietate redemptionis vvhich distinguisheth the greatnes or sufficiencie of the price from the proprietie of redemption Agreably whereunto S. Ambrose likewise saith that Etsi Christus pro omnibus passus est specialiter tamen pro nobis passus est quia pro Ecclesia passus est Although Christ suffered for all excluding none from the benefite of his death if they beleeve in him yet specially or in a speciall manner hee suffered for us that doe beleeve in him because for his Church it was that hee suffered And so likewise testifieth S. Hierome that Christ gave his life a redemption not for all but for manie that is saith hee for them that beleeve In like manner doth S. Paul say that God gave him to death for us all that is for all Gods elect whereof hee was one For so also S. Augustine interpreteth it in Ioh. tract 45. Pro nohis omnibus tradidit illum Sed pro quibus nobis praescitis Praedestinatis Iustificatis Glorificatis Hee gave him to death for us All But for vvhich Vs namely for them saith hee vvhich are the foreknovvne the Predestinate the Iustified and the Glorified persons Againe in the Epistle to the Hebrevves it is said that Christ Tasted death for all but in the verses that follow he sheweth the speciall meaning of those words viz. that those All vvere sanctified persons the brethren of Christ the Children vvhich God had given him and the Children which hee by that his death and passion was to bring unto glory For which cause he is also there called the Prince of their salvation In like sort it is said in the second Epistle to the Corinths that Christ dyed for all but in the words following he explaineth the matter and sheweth that hee died for all such as finding themselves dead in themselves should afterwards live not unto themselves anie longer but unto him that died for them and rose againe which kinde of godly and new life none doe live but the elect onely Againe in his Epistle to the Thessalonians he speaketh thus God hath not appointed us unto wrath but to obtaine salvation by the meanes of our Lord Iesus Christ which dyed for us Observe here likewise that he maketh Christ Iesus in a speciall and peculiar manner to die onely for those which bee appointed to obtaine salvation by the meanes of him and not for the rest which were appointed unto Wrath for he there manifestly distinguisheth betweene those two sorts of people Againe S. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians speaketh thus Husbands love your vvives even as Christ loved the Church and gave himselfe for it Where you see also that he appropriateth the benefit of the death of Christ to his Church which he so entirely loved Yea Christ Iesus himselfe affirmeth the same saying that Hee is that good Shepheard which giveth his life for his Sheepe And againe hee saith Greater love hath no man then this that a man bestovv his life for his friends yee are my friends if yee doe whatsoever I command you By all which appeareth that Christ in respect of the proprietie of redemption gave his life and died onely for his Church for his Sheepe for his Friends that would obey him which is as much to say as that hee died specially and properly for the Elect. Yea he was in Gods purpose intended and ordayned to come into the world for the redemption of the Elect. So S. Peter likewise testifieth directly for writing his Epistle to the Elect of God 1. Pet. 1.2 he saith that They were redeemed with the pretious blood of Christ as of a Lambe undefiled and without spot and hee there further saith expresly that Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world but was declared in the last times for their sakes Where you see it precisely affirmed that Christ was ordained to come and did come into the world for the Elect sake And so also doth S. Paul declare in his Epistle to Timothy And this likewise doth Esay shew in his Prophesie saying Vnto us a Childe is borne unto us a Son is given that is unto the Church and people of God of which number the Prophet was one that so speaketh Againe S. Paul writing to the Church and people of God distinguishing them from the rest saith thus unto them Yee are not your owne for yee are bought with a price Therefore glorifie yee God in your bodie and in your spirit for they are Gods Againe in the Acts of the Apostles it is said to bee The Church of God which Christ hath purchased with that his blood Yea this is so evident that by the All for whom Christ died is in respect of redemption and remission of sinnes meant all the elect onely that for the clearer illustrating of it to be so the Scripture it selfe often useth in stead thereof this word Manie As in the Gospell according to S. Matthew Christ Iesus himselfe saith thus This is my blood of the nevv Testament that is shed for manie for the remission of their sinnes Againe hee saith The sonne of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a redemption for manie Marke that in both those places he saith That he gave his life to be a ransome or redemption not of all in a generalitie but of Manie that is as I said before of the Elect onely So likewise it is said in the Epistle to the Hebrevves Christ vvas once offered to take avvay the sinnes of manie And againe it is said by S. Paul that By the â—bedience of one namely of Christ manie shall be made righteous And so againe it is said in Daniel that The Messias should be slaine and that he should confirme the covenant vvith manie But beside all this S. Paul speaketh yet further verie plainely thus God setteth out his love tovvard us seeing that vvhilst vvee vvere yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being novv iustified by his blood vvee shall be saved from vvrath through him Observe here first that he saith Christ died for us that is for us that be of Gods Church and people for he speaketh in the person of them and in their behalfe and secondly observe that he maketh this an argument as it is indeede of Gods great and speciall love towards them that he sent his sonne to die for them what can be more plaine to shew that in Gods