the Apostles Nowe what commaundement hath it which is the thirde thing that is set downe by Bellarmine De effect sacram lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 2. cap. 2 de sacram confirm without which a Sacrament cannot be Bellarmine flatly confesseth that it hath no expresse commaundement in the scripture but in stead of a commaundement he deliuereth vs the execution or practise of it for so himselfe saieth Why then I may thus reason A sacrament must haue a promise of grace a visible or sensible signe and a commaundement from God or else it cannot be a sacrament as Bellarmine confesseth but confirmation hath neither promise of grace nor visible signe nor commaundement from God therefore it is no sacrament Their arguments out of the fathers make a greater shew It is well yet that they cannot presse vs but with the authoritie of men Notwithstanding this may be briefly said for their authorities from the fathers that either they are such as haue no writings extant but onely such scraps as they for their owne purpose haue gathered togither and therefore are witnesses of vs worthily suspected or such as haue no sound credite of any indifferent man or lastly such as make nothing for them or against vs in this questiō For the Papists will haue their Confirmation to bee a sacrament the matter whereof must bee Oyle and Balme but neither doe the most learned fathers make mention of the Balme neither are the Schoole-men agreed amongest themselues that it is needful for this sacrament Lib. 2. de sacram Confirm cap. 9 as Bellarmine confesseth Yea they thinke it absurde that a sacrament should be appointed by our sauiour Christ the matter whereof should bee so rare to finde so vncertaine whether we haue the true thing or not and so costly as hardly it can bee gotten and it is doubted of some whether there be nowe any true Baulme or not And this their sacrament is built vpon so vncertaine foundations that Alexander Alensis and Bonauenture two olde pillars of Poperie cannot find that it was instituted before the counsell at Melda Out of all which it is easie to vnderstande that as this Confirmation hath not in Gods worde any shew of warrant to make it a sacrament so neither out of the fathers can anie certaine argument be gathered for the same But such are all heretikes Iren. lib. 5 and such as imagine they can find out somwhat beside the truth following those things that are spoken diuersly and in sundrie sorts and walking weakly not being alwayes of one minde are led about like blind men by blinde guides they shall and that worthily fall into the hidden pit of ignorance euer seeking the truth but neuer finding it Which iudgement of God here mentioned against the heretikes we see to be fallen vpon the Papists who had rather wander in such vncertaine and blinde wayes than be ruled by the infallible word of God Of the Lordes Supper or Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and namely of Transubstantiation CHAP. 13 THE PROTESTANTS WE teach that by those visible signs of bread and wine the bodie and blood of our sauior Christ is so liuely and effectually represented and offered vnto our faith that the faithfull receiuers in the same Supper doe as truly receyue by faith Christ himselfe with all his treasures and graces to the comfort and foode of their soules as they receiue the bread and wine with their mouth to the nourishment of their bodies And that this our spirituall nourishment maye bee the more liuely represented the substance of the bread wine must needs remaine for our bodilie nourishment as in Baptisme likewise the water remaineth vnchanged to signifie our spirituall washing So that as we chāge not the substance of these creatures without which they cannot bee a Sacrament so we teach Christ to be receiued spiritually and therefore most truly of the faithfull receiuer THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome not content with this spirituall and true receiuing of Christ do teach that by the wordes of consecration as they cal them the very bread and wine haue their substance chaunged into the bodie and bloud of Christ So that Christ whome in the Creed we confesse to be ascended into heauen and that he shall come from heauen to iudge the quick and the dead is by that means brought into euery Pix which ouerthroweth the nature of man which hee tooke of the Virgin Marie for man can bee but in one place Wherby also there follow such inconueniences that it is with them a great question whether the Mouse that eateth the host Hom. par 3 quaest 80 artic 3. do eate Christes bodie or not some affirme it and some answer to say shee doth Glos dist 2 de consec cap. Qui bene Durand ra◠diu lib. 4 rubr 41. is not greatly absurd because the most wicked men doe eate it Others say that it miraculously ceaseth to bee Christes bodie But seeing the first miracle is wrought by the words I pray you howe hath the Mouse wrought this second miracle in making it cease to be Christs bodie and said nothing Seeing this doctrine of Transubstantiation doth bring with it so grosse or rather so monstrous absurdities a man would thinke that no Christian would stand in defence of the same For how can we not abhorre such teachers as indeuour to make vs beleeue that the most wicked persons may eate the flesh of Christ Iohn 6. Which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer as our Sauiour Christ doth often tell vs. And yet to defend their Transubstantiation Bel. de euch lib. 3. ca. 9. they defend this as a good and fruitfull opinion Who will folow such guides as lead vs into such marishes as themselues know no way to get out Such is the question which before I touched whether the Mouse doe eate the bodie of Christ if he eate the host A question not mooued by vs as Bellarmine would seeme to make men beleeue De Ecuhar lib. 3. cap. 14. and therefore would make vs like the Iewes Pagans and Heritikes but moued and disputed by themselues as may appeare by the master of Sentences lib. 4. dist 13 in dist 2. de consecrat cap Qui bene and also in the place before alledged out of Durand Yea Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alledged For first hee setteth downe flatly That although Christ be truly in the Sacramēt yet can he not be hurt and therefore not eaten with Mice but the formes onely of bread may be eaten The absurditie hereof I will not stand vpon in this place But Bellarmine will shewe vs this by a demonstration The Diuinitie sayeth hee is euerie where yet not cōsumed by fire nor defiled by filth Is this good diuinity to make the body of Christ not subiect to corruption because the godhead is not Glorified it is and therfore not corruptible but
bread I trust then it will not bee anie heresie for mee to expounde nature the properties of the bread seeing doctor Chadsey a catholike doth it We see then that this vnanswerable argument that he made so great account of and bragged that it could neuer be answered is long since fully answered by one of his owne friends he knew not of it Ciril is his fift witnes not that learned father that was bishop of Alexandrie but another that was B. of Ierusalē Ciril Ierus cathec Mistagog 4 whose books are but lately set forth by thēselues that now bring him in for a witnes therfore we may doubt whether he be wel delt wtal Out of him he aledgeth 3. places He once turned water into wine shal he not be worthy to be trusted that he turned wine into bloud Beholde here sayth maister Bellarmine a reall change And why so I knowe he will answere because it was so in the water for it was really changed into wine and therfore also saint Iohn Iohn 2 11 who reporteth the storie saith it was a myracle Now to change wine into bloud is as great a miracle and therefore it is likely that if there had bin any such miracle wrought some or other would haue noted it for a miracle seeing so many haue spokē of that matter namely three Euangelists and S. Paul Master Bell. knoweth that the fathers vse many times to speake verie hyperbolically and to amplify with excessiue speaches the matters that they would set forth as here this Ciril doth yet we must not gather thereof such a real change in the wine as I haue said was in the water but this is spoken to win that at our hands that he in that place moueth vs vnto that we should not thinke the sacramentall wine to bee but bare wine His second witnesse for maister Bellarmine is after in that place Vnder the forme of bread the bodie is giuen and in forme of wine the bloud Wherupon maister Bellarmine againe insulteth thus Behold the accidents of bread which remaine We grant it but not the accidents or shew of bread only but the substance also and that he hath not yet denied therefore let vs see his third place Knowe this for a certaintie that this bread which is seene of vs is not bread though thy tast perceiue it to be bread In deed hee speaketh here farre otherwise than the auncient fathers doe in that hee sayeth It is not bread For there is not one of the fathers for at the least six hundred yeeres after Christ that euer spake so but this man onely And therefore howsoeuer he amplifieth the matter in wordes to bring vnto the holy Sacraments due regarde which the fathers at those times vpon great causes did much endeuour Catec Mist 3 yet he is not to be thought to haue meant otherwise than that hee sayd before that it is no more common bread For although if they regarde but the taste they shall finde no change yet that sacrament is an authenticall seale of our faith which assureth vs that Christ is spiritually giuen vnto vs. And thus much briefly of these authorities that men may see that they are not so very plaine that infallible arguments may be gathered out of them But now I must needes speake somewhat of the Author And first for the Booke it selfe Lib. Eccles hist ◠ca. 23. out of which these places are alleaged it seemeth to me that saint Hierome hath somewhat burnt it in the eare when he saith that hee wrote it when hee was but a yong man noting thereby perchance his yong and slender iudgement And of himselfe Ruffinus saith Lib. 2. ca. 40 That hee did change sometime in faith and in Communion often And Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall history saith of him that being summoned to answere some accusations that were laid against him he fearing to come to his triall for two yeares together appeared not and therefore was deposed What reason then that wee should be content to stand to his triall for matters in question that was himselfe afraide to be tried by the learned men of his time Or that hee who was deposed from his seate by them that best knew him yea and that as it seemeth by Ruffinus his saying of him for some heresie should now sit as Iudge yea or else be allowed as witnes in so weighty matters As for saint Ambrose De iis qui initiantur mist cap. 9. whom next he alleageth he maketh not against vs. He saith indeede that the bread is that which Nature hath formed but that Blessing hath hallowed Which is nothing else but that which hath beene answered before that it is not common bread but as Theodoret saith Theod. Immutabili◠dialog 1. the Nature not being changed to Nature is Grace added And that this is S. Ambrose his meaning is most plaine not only by that which he afterwardes saith in that very chapter Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes an other thing is named after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified but also most euidently in his bookes of the Sacraments Lib. 4. cap. 4. where speaking of the change that is in these visible signes hee vseth these wordes If there bee so great vertue in the worde of the Lorde Iesus that the thinges that were not beganne to bee how much rather can it worke that they the visible signes in the Sacrament bee that which they were and be changed into an other thing By which hee can meane no other but a sacramentall change because hee flatly affirmeth that these signes are that which they were The first place that hee alleageth out of Chrysost is this It is he that doth sanctifie these things the outward elements and change them In Matth. Hom. 83. but that hee speaketh of a sacramental change only his owne wordes a litle before in that place do prooue For in teaching how that by these sensible creatures he deliuereth vnto vs things not sensible hee bringeth his example of Baptisme wherein I know they wil not say the water is transubstantiated And yet Chrysostome maketh no difference betweene it and the sacrament of Christes body and blood but that in them both in like sort by sensible creatures insensible graces are deliuered But most plainely in an other place doeth he confute that which the Papists woulde force out of these wordes namely the change of the substance of the bread saying Before the bread is sanctified Ad Caesarium monachum wee call it bread but the diuine grace hauing sanctified it by the Priest it is freeed from the name of bread and is vouched worthy of the name of the Lordes body although the nature of the bread abide in it Whereby wee see the change that hee speaketh of is in the vse not in the substance of the bread In the latter place Chrysostome saieth thus Doest thou see bread De Euchar. in encaenus doest
thou see wine doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe God forbid Thinke not so For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing aboundeth euen so heere thinke the mysteries to bee consumed by the substance of the body In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish transubstantiation For although they doe teach that the substance of the bread is perished yet the accidentes they teach still to remaine and euer they say that Christ is present in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine But when waxe is cast into the fire there is not so much as a shew that there hath beene waxe but all is consumed Therefore this similitude maketh not for transubstantiation And in trueth whosoeuer shall reade that whole sermon shall easily perceiue that Chrysost there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the people so to be affected when they come vnto the holy sacrament that their eie shoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures but their minde altogetherr exercised in heauenly cogitations according saith he vnto the promise that you made vnto the Priest when as hee saide Lift vp your mindes and hearts and you answered I haue it lifted vp vnto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vnto vs in an other place that especially in these holie mysteries Chrysost in Math. hom 83 wee shoulde not onely beholde that which is before our eyes but especially remember his wordes But it were too tedious to answere euery place particularly that they doe alleadge and out of this which is already spoken it is easie to answere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or sixe hundred yeares But if any man wil aske why our sauiour Christ doth giue vnto the bread the name of his Bodie and to the wine the name of his Blood And why the fathers doe so call these outward signes the bodie and blood of our sauiour Christ I will answere with Theodoret an ancient father Dial. 1. Immutabilâ—â— Hee would haue them that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are seene but in respect of the change of the name to beleeue the change that is made through grace As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the first of them was more than a thousand yeeres after Christ whereby it may appeare how late this doctrine is whereupon Scotus a schooleman doeth confesse that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the councel of Lateran although Bellarmine reproue him for it Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it so many absurdities is darkened with so many doubtes hath no warrant in the Scriptures no ground in the ancient fathers and is not to be accounted as an article of faith euen by the confession of them that speake of the greatest antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares since let vs take heed of them who crie continually Antiquitie Antiquitie and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuises of their owne and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith deliuered by Christ and his apostles and sincerely preserued many hundred yeeres in the church of God But of this because it is one of the speciall points of doctrine wherein we dissent I haue stoode longer That the wicked receiue not in the Sacrament Christs bodie and blood CHAP. 14 THE PROTESTANTS BEcause that whosoeuer hath eaten the sonne hath the sonne for hee is meate that perisheth not Ioh. 6.50 and he that hath the sonne hath life 1. Ioh. 5.22 And on the contrary De ciuit Dei lib. 21. ca. 25 De consecra dist 2. vt quid paras ex Augustino as saint Augustine saith He can not eate Christs body that is not in his body Lastly seeing he can not be torn with the teeth but must be receiued by faith wee therefore teach that although the wicked may be partakers of the visible signes yet they can not be said to eate or receiue the body and blood of our sauiour Christ And with Saint Augustine In Ioh. tract 59 that they may eate as Iudas did the Lords bread against the Lord but the bread the Lorde they can not eate which doctrine is most plaine and bringeth with it no absurdities or doubts THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. forgetting that the Sacrament consisteth of twoo things that is to say the materiall breade and that which came down from heauen which is Christ do adde vnto these a third namely Bellarm. de Euchar. li. 1 cap. 23 the effect of the body of Christ or his spirituall graces making thereby a separation and as it were a diuorce betweene the bodie of Christ which they teach the wicked may receiue and those graces which can not in deede bee separated from the same and cannot be giuen to the vngodly Whereby they do wrap themselues in such a cloud of doubts as all the Papists in the world wil neuer be able to answer M. Bilsoâ— part 4. whilest some say that this body goeth no further than to the teeth some allowe it to haue passage but to the stomake but not to abide there some to continue there also yea some say that it goeth as other meate into the belly yet remaineth stil Christs body so long as the forme of the bread remaineth yea and that it may be voided either vpward or downward and receiued of man or beast Although this vnreconcileable difference that is among them in so materiall a point of their religion namely what is becom of the body of Christ after the wicked haue receiued the same and these filthy blasphemies and detestable shifts that they are driuen vnto for defence of their heresie be a sufficient confutation both of that doctrine of transubstantiation from whence doe spring all these filthie pudles and sinckes and also of this other that the wicked may eate the body of Christ which is but a sowre grape of that vnkindely roote yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant I will by Gods assistance take a short view of their arguments whereby they indeuour to proue that the most wicked men may eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ Now their chiefe and almost onely proofe is taken from transubstantiation of the vntrueth of which doctrine I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the former chapter And now therefore that I may conclude that if the wicked can not eate the body of Christ vnlesse the bread be changed into the bodie as themselues will confesse then because there is no such change therefore the wicked eate not his body But one shew of an argument they make out of the scriptures 1. Cor. 11.27 29 He
that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthily is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord and after eateth and drinketh iudgement vnto himselfe making no difference of the Lordes bodie Out of which place they reason to this effect The wicked or vnworthy receiuers can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord vnlesse they receiue it But they are guiltie of them and receiue iudgement to themselues therby Therefore they receiue the bodie and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true for saint Paul saith it But the first is most false For although the wicked can not be neither are partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ yet because they come not to the sacrament which was instituted of God to offer and assure vs of the heauenly graces with such reuerence as they ought to do and in such sincerity as behoueth them therefore are they accounted and that woorthily to despise the things themselues that are represented by those visible signes And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ they shewed their contempt of the thing signified thereby And therfore S. Ambrose Ambrose saith euen vpon these words Because it is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in mystery S. Hierome Hierome yeeldeth the reason why he is guiltie of the body blood of Christ Because he hath accounted as vile the Sacrament marke his wordes of so great a mysterie Not therefore are they guiltie because they eate Christ but because saith hee they despise the Sacrament of so great a mysterie And Theophilact Theophilact vppon these wordes saieth Hee that receiueth it vnwoorthily shall bee no lesse guiltie of wickednesse than if hee shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see that Theophilact doth compare the vnworthy receiuing of the holie sacrament with the shedding of Christes blood and so maketh them two diuerse things And therefore in his iudgement it is not all one to receiue the Sacrament and to receiue Christ So that by these places it appeareth that the wicked may bee guiltie of the body and blood of Christ which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed vp vnto the faithfull and yet not receiue the body and blood of Christ Yet by the way I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him doeth falsifie his wordes And therefore where the Apostle saith hee that eateth of this bread and drinketh of the Lordes cup vnworthily he saith Hee that eateth the Lordes body Orthod ex pli lib. 7. and drinketh of his blood But it is no great fault in poperie to abvse the Scriptures and to adde to them or take from them as they thinke good Wee see therefore that this cleane meate is for cleane men this holy banquet is for holy guests as they had wont to crie For De benedict patriaâ— ch c. â— as saint Ambrose saith This bread is the foode but of the godlie And why because Our abiding in him Cypr. de coâ—na Domini is our eating of him and our drinking of him is our incorporating into him our seruices being subiected our willes conioyned and our affections vnited to him Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certaine earnestnesse and desire to abide in him Which things to be in the vngodly the Papists will in no wise affirme Many testimonies might be alleaged but with one shift they thinke to answer all The answer of the Papists Christ his body and blood say they may be receiued of the wicked but not the fruit or effect thereof And may Christ be receiued of any and they not to liue by him Confutation of it Can he that is full of all grace and power be at any time as it were robbed of the same God forbid For if they wil speake of his conuersing among the Iewes and of his being among many whilest he was vpon earth that got no good thereby the reason thereof is plaine it was because they receiued him not Ioh. 3.19 20. But to say that any may receiue him and is not partaker of his graces and benefites is most expresly against the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall liue through me They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Sauiour Christ than to say that any can receiue him and yet not be partakers of his heauenly graces So that whilest they take vpon them the defence of the wicked in some sort they set themselues euen wilfully to reproch the holy one of Israel But if it should be granted to them that the wicked may eate Christ how or when wil they agree what shall be done with that body blood of Christ that they so eate For themselues deny that the soules of the wicked are norished by him And that their bodies should by his body be norished is too absurd What then becommeth of his body and blood which they say the wicked receiue To answer this question resolutely and definitiuely they haue not yet agreed they neuer will they neuer can Therefore vntill they can answere directly to such inconueniences as of necessitie follow the doctrine that they teach let vs beleeue that Christ is the foode of the faithfull onely because none other but they do receiue him Let vs not heare them who in the sacraments which should be and are indeede most plaine and easie teach vs wholy to looke for miracles as doe the Papists For Christ is present by miracle and absent by miracle if they say true And so when all learning and scriptures faile then they perswade vs that we must seeke for a wonder and so make them that will giue credite to them in these their grosse deuises the wonders of the world for their folly But enough of this That the Cup ought not to be denied vnto the lay people which thing the Papists do CHAP. 15. THE PROTESTANTS BEcause it is needeful for the nourishment of our bodies to haue not meate onely to satisfie our hunger but drinke also to quench our thirst in And that Christ would represent vnto vs in his Sacrament the perfect nourishment of our souls wherevnto nothing could be added because that nothing should be wanting For this cause did our Sauiour Christ institute his sacrament of these two partes of our nourishment and gaue as well the one of them as the other vnto his Apostles Commanding them also aswel to take drinke of the cup as to eate of the bread And the Church also did practise this more than a thousand yeeres But of late the councel of Constance Anno 1415. Sess 13. did forbid it and commaund the Sacrament to be receiued but in one kinde THE PAPISTS SO that the church of Rome not regarding the expresse commandement of our Sauiour Christ neither the practise of
Gods Church much more then a thousand yeeres after Christ neither that fulnes of comfort that wee learne by the bread wine that Christ is vnto vs both meate and drinke that is the perfect and sufficient foode of our hungry and thirstie soules haue robbed the lay people of the one halfe of the Lordes supper proclaming thereby vnto the world that they are disobedient against Christes commaundement iniurious to his people and that in steede of the continuall and auncient practise of the Primitiue Church they establish their owne new deuise Lo what cause haue they to bragge of their ancient faith And for the vpholding of this their doing against both Trueth and Antiquitie they bring some reasons Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester in his booke against the assertions of Luther Artic. 16. to defende that it was lawfull for the church to alter the institution of Christ and therefore to take awaie the cup from the lay people alleadgeth the example of the Apostles who are saide to baptise in the name of Christ only whereas the sacrament of baptisme Acts 8.16 10.48 Matth. 28.19 was commaunded In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holie Ghost But to bishop Fisher the papist I oppose Bellarmine the Iesuite and a papist who writing of the sacrament of baptisme Lib. 1. cap. 3. plainelie denieth that the Apostles baptised in the name of Christ only and largely proueth it and sheweth that where it is saide that they baptised in the name of Iesus or in the Lordes name the meaning is that they baptised in the faith of Iesus or by his authoritie or with baptisme which he instituted or in his name but not in his name only So that this reason which Fisher maketh for to proue the authoritie of the church heerein De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28. is verie sufficiently answered by Master Bellarmine It is therefore needefull hee shoulde make a supplie of some other argument to proue that seeing hee hath taken that weapon out of their handes Let vs therefore see how hee mendeth the matter The church saith hee may ordaine and prescribe those thinges that belong not to the substaunce of the sacramentes and are not ordered by the word of God But the rite of eating vnder one kinde or vnder two is such Therefore it maie bee ordered and prescribed of the Church These are his verie wordes this is his argument whereof the maior or first proposition as himselfe saith is most true and therefore wee graunt it but the minor which is that to eate in one kinde or in both kindes is not of the substaunce of the sacrament or ordered by the word of God that is most false And because it containeth two pointes I will brieflie touch them both Where he saith it is not of the substance of the sacrament whether we receiue in one kinde or in two it is in my iudgement euen against all reason and testimony of antiquity and the very nature of a sacrament For the sacrament must needes consist of matter and forme The matter is the bread and wine I speake of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter Iren. li. 4. ca. 34 To the forme of this Sacrament belong these wordes He brake breade and gaue them and saide take eate Math. 26.26 27 this is my bodie Hee tooke the cup blessed and saide drinke yee all of this c. Yea and neither of these can be wel omitted but that therby we are the lesse occasioned to meditate of the efficacy of Christs death passion For as the breaking of the bread that it might be giuen to vs that our bodies might be nourished thereby is a representation of Christes body which was for vs tormented so the drinking of the cup is the representation of the shedding of Christs bloud for vs. Moreouer let vs consider what is that which they would haue the material part or rather a substantial part in this sacramēt To receiue the sacrament as appeares by the censure of Collen Expl. dialog 9 expl Theol lib. 7. and Andradius but in what kinde it is receiued is not materiall say they Marke their boldenesse In the institution there is not one word that willeth vs in such generall termes to receiue the Eucharist or Sacrament but expresse wordes to will vs to Take and eate the bread and to drinke of the cup and yet that which God doth not mention they will haue to be of the substance of a sacrament and that which is expresly set downe in the word they may chuse whether they wil doe it or not But how doth Bellarmine prooue that the rite of communicating in on or two kindes De Euch. li. 4. cap. ◠8. belongeth not to the substance of the sacrament The vse of a thing saith he that is permanent is not the substance of it but the communicating is the vse of the sacrament which sacrament is a thing permanent Therefore the communicating in one or two kindes is not the substance of it The whole force of this argument consisteth in that which is chiefly in question amongst vs that is whether the sacrament is a thing permanent or not And we vpon iust cause deny it And therefore his argument is a plaine fallacie called the begging of the thing that is in question and can bee no strong reason against vs. By a thing permanent they vnderstand that the Eucharist is not onely a Sacrament as they say their other sacraments are and as baptisme is in respect of the vse and receuing of it but also that it being consecrated once to be a sacrament continueth so to bee whether it be receiued or not Which opinion they holde stiffely for the maintenance of their adoration and carrying it about For they teach it still to bee a sacrament howsoeuer they vse it Out of which absurde principle hee gathereth this false and detestable doctrine that they may change this point of Christs institution as they will But wee knowing that the Sacraments are onelie helpes for our infirmities and instituted to supply our wants and that the eating of the bodily foode in the Sacrament and so applying it to the nourishment of our our bodies is that which representeth vnto vs most liuely our receiuing of Christ by a true faith to the nourishment of our soules detest and despise those captious and curious subtilties whereby the papistes doe seeke to defend their wonderfull boldnesse in changing the very institution and in breaking the expresse commaundement of Christ Wherein wee haue for our warrant the worde of Christ which biddeth vs eate and drinke and therefore it can not be but arrogant presumption for man to forbid that which Christ hath commaunded howsoeuer hee will pretend that it is not of the substance of the Sacrament We haue also the practise in the primitiue church which is testified by Isichius In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. which vsed for to burne that which
gods holy commaundement and follow the institution of our sauiour Christ than to follow any the deuises of man And when he commandeth drinke you all of this it is a great sinne and dedeserueth Gods wrath for any man to answer I will not receiue the cup because the Pope and the Popish church of late hath forbidden it Against the sacrifice of the Masse or of the Altar as they call it CHAP. 16 THE PROTESTANTS NOwe to their grosse absurdities and manifest deprauings of the institution of Christ they adde also their blasphemies against the sacrifice of Christ Iesus which as he was once offered Heb. 10.10.14 and by that one offering for sinnes hath consecrated for euer thē that are sanctified Heb. 9.12 And hath obtained eternall redemption for vs so wee confesse that by that one sacrifice he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1. Iohn 2.2 which he offered for vs vpō the crosse and cannot be dayly offered by the Priest without great wrong to Christes eternall and onely Priesthood and without great presumptiō in that priest that dare offer so excellent a sacrifice neither without derogatiō to the vertue of his death THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome teacheth that in the Masse the priest a sinfull man doth offer vp that most holy sacrifice Iesus Christ vnto God the father a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead yea for the greatest sinnes that wee commit As for originall sin they confesse that Christ hath taken that away by his sacrifice but our voluntarie sinnes which therefore also are more odious must be taken away by this sacrifice that the priest offereth vpon the Altar So haue they turned the Sacrament into a sacrifice Christes holy ordinance into a blasphemous Idoll and al for their owne gaine that the Priestes might bee hyred to vse this remedie for the sinnes of the people this salue for all sores De Missa li. 1. cap. 6 Out of Ge. 14.18 The first argument that Bellarmine hath for proofe of this vnbloudie sacrifice of the Masse is at large handled by Bellarmine but the effect of it is this The thing figured must bee like to the figure But Melchisedech who was the figure offered to God bread and wine as a sacrifice Therefore also must Christ offer his bodie in forme of bread Bell li. 1. ca. 7. de Missa Heb. 7. and his bloud in forme of wine for a sacrifice First his first proposition is not simplie true but onely inasmuch as the one must be figured of the other But in what things Melchisedech is a figure of Christ none can better tell than the Apostle to the Hebrewes who fully handleth that matter Col. cum Tryph. fol. 36 and yet doth not once mention this sacrifice And therefore we may gather that Melchisedech was no figure of Christ in that point For if he was then was not the Apostle faithfull to omit so necessarie a point Iustin also hath a notable comparison of them but he doth not touch that in one worde Secondly a sacrifice must be offered but this bread and wine was but brought foorth for so doth their owne translation testifie Thirdly a sacrifice must be offered to God this place mentioneth no such thing and therefore most likely that it was brought to refresh Abraham and his souldiers Whereby we see that Bellarmines minor hath no truth in it wherein he affirmeth that Melchisedech offred bread and wine to God in sacrifice Lastly what a consequence is this Melchisedech offered to God bread and wine in sacrifice therefore Christ offered himselfe in forme of bread and wine Rather is this a strong argument to the contrarie if wee should graunt that he did offer the bread and wine to God which hath no probabilitie in it But I say if that should be granted wee might thus reason The thing figured must bee like to the figure but Melchisedech who was the figure offered but bread and wine therefore Christ offered nothing else but bread and wine and so maketh it nothing for that sacrifice for which the Papists doe alledge it As for his testimonies out of the fathers for proofe of Melchisedechs offering of bread and wine to God in sacrifice because I purpose especially to goe through his generall arguments I omit of purpose a particular examining of euerie place onely contenting my selfe with this generall obseruation that out of the testimonies alledged hee can hardly conclude that which hee taketh in hande to prooue because the fathers seeme rather to allude many times vnto that which he did than so to alledge his doing as that they thinke anie necessarie argument for proofe hereof is to be gathered out of the same And that may wel be gathered out of Chrysostom vpon this place who saith thus In Gen. hom 3. For the honor that he shewed to the patriarke see how a sacrament is insinuated For he offred to him bread and wine Marke to him that is to Abraham flat against that which they would And this is most agreeable vnto the hystorie written by Iosephus who by all likelihood knew best in his time how that storie was thē vnderstood Ant. li. 1. c. 18 he saith that Melchisedech gaue great intertainment vnto the souldiers of Abraham And so Chrysostome in the place alledged saith Abraham brought forth loaues and wine And thus doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it So that if we rightly consider not onely what they say but how they speake it and vpon what ground to answer whatsoeuer he can bring out of the fathers concerning this point will not be hard Argument 2 The celebrating of the Passeouer saith Bellarmine was an expresse figure of the Eucharist de Missa lib. 1. cap 7. But the Passeouer was a kinde of offering of a sacrifice to God Therefore the Eucharist must so be Maister Bellarmine hath forgotten what he should proue hee must teach Christ to be in his last supper a sacrifice properly so called but this argument proueth the Eucharist to be a kinde of sacrifice This argument to be short is thus answered There were two things in the Passeouer The one was the killing of it by which was Christs death represented vnto vs as Iustine Martir that ancient father teacheth Dialog cū Tryph. Iudaeo The other was the eating of it by which was figured vnto them that spirituall foode of the soule Christ Iesus who was promised vnto their fathers And in this respect may it in some sort bee called a figure of the Eucharist because it represented vnto them that thing that the Eucharist representeth vnto vs. Therfore if in the first proposition Bellarmine meaneth by celebrating the Passeouer the eating of the Passeouer I graunt it but then is his minor or second proposition vntrue For the eating of it was not the killing of it and so not a sacrifice But if by the celebrating of the Passeouer he vnderstand the killing of it then is his maior to be denied because
alleadge M. Bellarmines reasons though not alwayes because he is accounted learned amongest vs and also commeth after others so that he hath seene what others haue and hath taken out of them what he liketh And as in all this treatise my endeuour is to proue I trust with some good effect that the doctrine of the church of Rome is not catholike so that it may the better appeare I haue towards the end set downe an abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis whereby I trust the meanest that seeth it shal be able to iudge how they make an vniust claime to the catholike religion And although I know my own wants and could rather submit my selfe to be a scholer vnto many than a teacher almost of any yet because I know not how my minde giueth me that this manner of writing may do some good especially among the vnlearned that are desirous to be taught I thought my duetie forced me to take this in hand though I want many helpes and meanes that other haue And to whom should this my labour such as it is be due rather than vnto you next after that place where I did sucke as it were my first milke of learning and laid almost the foundation of that knowledge such as it is that God hath indued mee withall By your good liberalitie I confesse my selfe to be the better inabled to do any good be it neuer so little that I can do in the church of God To your Worships therefore I confesse this my trauell to be due as a simple token of my sincere heart which would haue yeelded a better remembrance if my abilitie could haue affoorded it And the rather do I dedicate this Booke vnto your W. Company that you seeing the meaning of bestowing your exhibition which is to bring vp Labourers in Gods haruest teachers in his church to be in some part performed in me who first in Oxford receiued your liberalitie as I doubt not but you haue seene much more plentiful fruit in many other you may the more willingly continue your godly course and not be weary of your wel-doing Accept in good part I pray you this simple gift and if you see in it but my desire to doe good giue glo◠y to God to whose good grace I commit you and yours and my selfe to your good prayers From my house at Ryton in the Bishoprike of Durham Anno 1595. ⧠A necessarie Table of all the principall matters contained in euery chapter of this Booke THAT the Scriptures or word written is onely Gods word and not traditions Chapter 1 That this word is sufficient Chapter 2 The Scripture a sure rule Chapter 3 Scriptures easie Chapter 4 That onely the canonicall bookes of the old and new testament are this written word or Scriptures Chapter 5 What the catholike church is that in the creede is mentioned Chapter 6 That the catholike church mentioned in the articles of our creede is not visible or to be seene Chapter 7 The church here militant vpon the earth may erre Chapter 8 Of the markes of the church or how we may know the true church Chapter 9 What a sacrament is what is the effect of it or what it worketh how many sacraments there are Chapter 10 Of the sacrament of Baptisme Chapter 11 Of Confirmation Chapter 12 Of the Lords supper and Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and namely of transubstantiation Chapter 13 That the wicked receiue not in the sacrament Christs body and bloud Chapter 14 That the cup ought not to be denied to the lay people which thing the papists do Chapter 15 Against their sacrifice of the Masse or of the altar as they call it Chapter 16 Of true and christian repentance and of the Popish Sacrament of penance Chapter 17 Of lawfull calling into the ministerie and against the sacrament of Orders as they call it Chapter 18 Of matrimony that it is not a sacrament and that it is lawfull for all Chapter 19 Of anoiling or extreme vnction that it is not a sacrament Chapter 20 Of originall sin what it is and whether concupiscence be sin or not Chapter 21 Of the works of infidels and such as are not regenerate Chapter 22 Of Baptisme whether it doe extinguish and kill in vs originall sinne or not Chapter 23 That we haue not of our selues free wil or power to deliuer our selues from sinne Chapter 24 That by our workes we cannot bee iustified and against the doctrine of merites Chapter 25 Of iustification by faith and what faith is Chapter 26 That good works are necessary duties for all christians to perfourme Chapter 27 Of prayer to whome and how we should pray Chapter 28 Against Images in churches or anie where else for religions cause Chapter 29 What fasting is and of the true vse of fasting Chapter 30 Of Purgatorie Chapter 31 An Abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis with obseruations vpon the said Author Chapter 32 An exhortation to christian magistrates for to defend this truth Chapter 33 FINIS That the Scriptures or written word is onely Gods Word and not traditions CHAP. 1 THE PROTESTANTS The rule of faith life BEcause it is confessed of al that gods worde must bee the rule and square of our faith and life of our religion and conuersation It is very meete that first wee enquire what is this word of God And wee affirme What is gods word that that onelie which is contained in the Bookes of the old and new Testament is the very true word of God First bicause we are so often earnestly charged not to adde any thing to it or to take any thing from it Secondly this is prooued by the practise of the godlie of all times The Iewes most religiously kept the word written with great sinceritie and made it the Touchstone to try their actions by and by it they reformed such things as were amisse in religion especially As in Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias and others it may appeare Christ also and his Apostles confirmed that which they taught out of the Scriptures yea they confirmed and expounded the Lawe Mat. 5. and preached no other gospell thā that which before was promised by the Prophets Rom. 1.2 And accounted them accursed that shoulde preach any other Gal. 1.6 7 8 9. Lastly the Fathers of the purer times of the Church did not only with open mouth submit their writings and doctrines to the iudgement of the Scriptures but also they tried doubts established all trueths and confuted all heresies onely by this word written THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of ROME not suffering herself to be hemmed in within so narow lists Prou. 22.28 hath remoued the ancient bounds which their fathers made and faineth that God who hath hitherto had but one voice now in our dayes shoulde speake with two tongues What is gods word in the Ro. church For they make Gods word to consist of two partes namely of the word written which we
is nothing else then it is that is it signifieth the bodie of the Lord. Col. cum Trypho Iud◠o. Which exposition I haue from himselfe who saith in an other place That Christ hath deliuered vs bread for the Remembrance of his bodie that is taken vp into heauen Where he doth not onely shew the Sacrament to be a Memoriall of Christs bodie which here is to be proued but also that his bodie is absent and in heauē in that he saith it is for a remēbrance of his body that is taken vp And in the same book afterwards the same father saith that By the dry and moist nourishment the bread wine we are admonished of those things which it is said Christ hath suffred for vs. Where by calling thē nourishment that of our bodies for such nourishment belongeth to thē he plainly denieth any alteration of the substance in those visible signes and then further sheweth the true vse of the sacramēt which is to admonish vs of Christs suffring for vs. Out of Iren. he allegeth these words How shal they know Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. that that bread wherin thanks are giuē is the body of their lord but that Iren. did not dream there of any Transubstantiation it is plaine by his wordes that folow immediately when he faith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things the earthly and the heauenly If the bread were transubstantiate it could not be called an earthly thing Moreouer hee writeth in that place against the heretikes that sayd there was another God the father besides him that made all things Nowe he inferreth if they should say true howe shall they knowe that that bread is the bodie of their Lord Whereby it appeareth that his purpose is here not to shew what is in that bread but which Lord it representeth vnto them As the verie next wordes in that sentence declare which are these If they say not that he is the sonne of him that made the world so that the chiefest force of this reason after Irene his true meaning is in this word Their Lord. And besides to call the signe by the name of that which it signifieth the bodie of Christ for the sacrament of the bodie of Christ is verie agreeable vnto the Scriptures but such maner of speaches are but a weake proofe for transubstantiation Next commeth in Tertullian but so maimed mangled that thereby maister Bellarmine proclaimeth vnto the world that he meant nothing lesse than to haue the truth knowne Out of him hee alledged these wordes Con. Marcionem li. 4. neer the ende The bread which he tooke he made his bodie saying this is my bodie A man would thinke this were a very plaine place but Bellarmine dealeth falsly herein For when Tertullian hath spoken for him what he would haue him then he stoppeth his mouth least he marre all For the very next wordes are that is the figure of his bodie Nowe let vs take the whole sentence together and so trie what hee can make of it The bread which hee tooke hee made his bodie saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie And after also to shew what he meant by that he saide he made it his bodie he deliuereth it in other termes he calleth it his bodie If then maister Bellarmine will aske how the bread can bee made his bodie Tertullian telleth how Li. de Euch. 3. cap. 18. Sacramentally or figuratiuely So that this bold question of maister Bellarmine commeth out of season like a triumph before the conquest His fourth witnesse that he produceth Cyp. de coena domini is Cyprian whose wordes are these This bread which the Lord did reach to his disciples being changed not in shape or forme but in nature by the omnipotencie of the worde is made flesh This testimonie hee esteemeth as the club of Hercules that no man can withstand De Euch. li. 2 cap. 9. and therefore in another place alledging it he sayth thus This testimonie cannot bee answered although the aduersaries haue often assayed to answere it Let vs then examine a little this vnanswerable place And first it is confessed by Bellarmine that that booke is not Cyprians and therefore the father of that booke is vncertaine but yet wee will not denie it but answere the place if we can How the bread is made flesh hath beene sufficiently declared in the answer to the former arguments so that all the hardnesse is in this howe the bread is chaunged not in forme but in nature First that is true in respect of the vse that it is put to For as it is a sacrament and representeth vnto vs our nourishment in Christ so must it truely nourish our bodies it beeing chaunged in vs to that ende and nowe not the accidents but the substaunce of bread can worke this nourishment And therefore if wee take nature for substaunce it may well so be expounded and agree with that which Iustinus Martyr sayeth as before is saide And admit that nature doeth here signifie substaunce let vs see what they can prooue by it They say the substance of the bread ceasseth and is quite taken away But Cyprian sayeth the bread is but chaunged in nature but still it remayneth bread you see for hee so calleth it Therefore because he vttereth it in such a maner it is most certaine that he meaneth not by that worde nature the substance of bread but something else Nature therefore is somtime taken for the disposition or for the propertie or vse of a thing as the authour of the booke of Wisdome sayth Sap. 7.20 That God had giuen him knowledge of the nature of beasts In like maner Rom. 1.26 Ephes ◠.3 Iam. 3.7 We were by nature saith saint Paul the children of wrath And saint Iames saith The whole nature of beasts hath beene tamed by the nature of man So that this word nature very often doth not signifie the substance And here it cannot signifie the substance of the bread because the substance of it cannot be changed but that it must also be annihilated or broght to nought therfore he speaketh but of the vse or propertie of it that it is altered And doctor Chadsey a learned Papist as was any in Oxford in his time doth confirme this my answer For when Peter Martir disputing against D. Tresham had pressed him with an authoritie of Theodorets Dialog 1 which was this Christ hōnored those signes which we see with the names of his bodie and blood yet not changing the nature but to nature adding grace And he as it seemeth not liking well of D. Tresham his answer this Doctor Chadsey disputing another day tooke vpon him to answer such places as master Martyr had before alledged against master Tresham and amongst others he answereth this place out of Theodoret thus I say that Thodoret meaneth as other fathers doe who when they say that the nature remayneth they meane the propertie of the
remained of the sacramēt Origen also reporteth the same Which they would not haue don if they had thought as do the papists that it had beene transubstantiated into Christs body or else that it had beene as heere they affirme a sacrament although it be not receiued as Christ commaunded it should be Seeing therefore these men that would seeme pillars in the church of Christ doe picke quarrelles at his ordinance and make exception to his commaundement and all to writhe their neckes out of his yoke and to free themselues from his lawes like lewd seruauntes which will not frame themselues to doe that which woulde best please their maisters but that onely which they must bee forced to doe whether they will or not let vs nowe see how in the second point they do seeke to peruert the verie decree it selfe that Christ set down concerning this matter to make men beleeue that hee meant no such thing as in trueth he did The second part of his assertion is that it is not ordered by the word of God what shall be done in that point This is an intollerable boldenesse Doth not our sauiour Christ take order as well for the cup as for the bread Doth not he that saieth Take eate say also Drinke ye all of this If any man will answere as Bellarmine doth in one place De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 27. that they were not both giuen at one time and therefore that properly to speake the Supper of the Lord consisteth but of one kind he should plainly declare that he hath rather a desire to contend than to knowe the trueth For what is it to vs how long time was betweene the one commaundement and the other so that we know that both the one and the other is instituted of Christ Yea the Apostle saint Paul very plainely telleth vs 1. Cor. 11. that the order both for the cup and the bread is deliuered to him of the Lord That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered vnto you And then hee sheweth Christs institution for the bread and also the cup. But with full mouth and one consent they tell vs that that commaundement belongeth to the Apostles onely and not to all the disciples And yet saint Mathew saith Math. 26.26 he gaue it to his disciples Yea and Christ commaundeth Drinke yee all of this And hath not saide concerning the bread eate ye all of this although wee deny not that euery one hauing prooued themselues should eate of it But seeing God hath giuen a more expresse commaundement vnto all for the cup than for the bread why should they rather restraine lay men from receiuing the cup than from the bread Againe doeth he not say to all them Drinke yee all of this to whome before hee saide Take eate Yes verily for the text is plaine both in the Euangelists and saint Paule But the bread must be giuen to al they confesse therefore why not the cup also And that which saint Paule wrote concerning the vse of the Sacrament it is plaine he wrote vnto all the church of Corinth not onely by that place which Kemnitius alleadgeth 1. Cor. 1.2 To all that call vppon the name of the Lorde and that hee writeth vnto the church of Corinth De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25. which Bellarmine doeth seeke to answere rather least he should seeme to say nothing than that in truth he saith anie thing worth the setting downe but also by the punishment that followed the abuse of the sacrament For this cause many are weake and feeble amongst you and many sleepe Which came vpon them not that did eate of that bread onely but also that drunke of that cup vnworthily And it cannot be imagined that either the ministers were so bad at that time so generally that so many of them would haue offended therein or if the fault had beene in them the Apostle would more particularly haue reprooued them neither were they then so many in one place that it could haue beene truely saide of them that many are weake and many sleepe or are dead Therefore whereas many were punished amongst the Corinthians for vnworthily receiuing both the bread and the cup and this word Many cannot as I haue prooued be there referred to their Teachers onely it followeth that this punishment was amongest the lay men as well at the last as amongst their ministers and therefore that the lay men in the church of Corinth receiued the cup. And thus much of that wicked assertion wherein they doe affirme that it is lawfull for the church to alter this part of Christes institution and also to take away the cup. Nowe to a second and as wicked a proposition as the other Wherein they teach that it is needelesse to be receiued in both kindes And to prooue this Bellarmine taketh some paines in three whole chapters De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 21 22 23 In the first two he sheweth that the whole sacrament may be receiued vnder one kinde and therefore in the last hee teacheth that no more good is to be gotten of the sacrament vnder both kindes than vnder one And although we can not allowe of that concomitance as it is termed that is that inseparable coniunction of the body and blood vnder either of the signes which especially hee prooueth in the first chapter of those three namely the one and twentieth that the whole substance of a sacrament is found in either kinde as hee teacheth in the two and twentieth chapter yet if we should grant those two points that which master Bellarmine would conclude in the three and twentieth chapter can not follow For what if Christ may bee wholy receiued vnder one kinde Yet it should not follow that vnder one as effectually he may be receiued as vnder both For as before I shewed his death is more liuely represented by the bread and his bloudsheding by the wine And that which more effectually representeth it is more profitable than that which lesse representeth the same And it is too much sawcinesse so to controll the wisedome of God that when hee saith Drinke yee all of this which is a plaine commandement any foolish man dare say It is to no profite it can do you no good As for the causes that are alleaged by Gerson and other why the popish church thought good to take away the cup from the lay people they are so foolish and friuolous that a man would think rather that they iested than spake in earnest But what cause soeuer man can pretend to alter that which Christ hath ordained it doth but testifie that he thought not Christ wise enough to preuent such inconueniences as hee by his wisedome hath prouided for Seeing therfore the church cannot forbid that that God commaundeth whatsoeuer causes they will pretend and if they might yet the causes set downe by the Romish church either are blasphemous or at the least friuolous it is a sure way for vs rather to regard
in the Eucharist is no killing or shedding of bloud But on the contrarie a man may thus reason The celebrating of the Passeouer was not in euerie respect a figure of the Eucharist For the Passeouer must haue the sprinkling of blood which might not be sprinkled but by the Priest only as appeareth 2. Chron. 30.16 where that solemne keeping of the Passeouer by king Ezechiah is described and 2. Chron. 35.11 where it is declared how zealously Iosiah performed the same seruice And in that respect onely is it to be counted a Sacrifice for that onely belonged to the Priests to doe so as no other but the Priests might doe it All other things might be and were performed by others But the Eucharist they all with full mouth confesse to bee vnbloodie and therefore in this thing wherein onely the Pascall Lambe may be accounted a sacrifice it is no figure of the Eucharist So the celebrating of the Passeouer euen in that point wherein it is a sacrifice doeth nothing proue that sacrifice which the Romish church would teach in the Masse And see how vnnecessarie an argument this is In the celebrating of the Passeouer there was a bloody sacrifice therefore in the Eucharist must bee a bloodie sacrifice This consequence the Papists themselues will not graunt and yet it is as good and necessarie as that of theirs In celebrating of the Paschall Lambe there was a sacrifice therefore in the Eucharist there must bee a sacrifice For this principle that master Bellarmine doeth set downe That celebrating of the Passeouer was en expresse figure of the Eucharist if it proue the Eucharist to haue a sacrifice it doth also proue it to haue a bloodie sacrifice for otherwise the Lambe or Passeouer was not an expresse figure of the Eucharist If therefore the Papists will denie that it is a bloudy sacrifice why should we grant it to bee a sacrifice vnlesse they can alledge better reason than this that is taken from celebrating the Passeouer And thus much for the second argument Argument 3 The third argument that master Bellarmine bringeth he sayeth hee neuer read answere to it and this it is The blood of the olde Testament Exod. 24. Cap. 8. was the bloud of a sacrifice alreadie slaine and offered therefore the blood of the new Testament is so Answere But this blood of the new Testament is the blood of Christ as himself faith This is my bloud therefore he was the sacrifice offered vp in the Supper It is true that when Moses said This is the bloud of the couenant that God hath made with you the beast for sacrifice was alreadie slaine but that it must needes be so in the bloud of the newe testament there is no necessitie and therefore that argument must bee denied First because master Bellarmine maketh the especial thing in this couenant to be that the bloud was shed before the words were spoken whereas the principall part in deed is that the couenant must be established by bloud And therein Moses directed them to Christ in whose bloud the couenant of grace is established with Gods people Which the Apostle to the Hebrews doth rightly consider of Heb. 9.8 and therefore looketh not to the time wherein the sacrifice was slaine but to the matter wherby the couenant was established Secondly the order which Moâ— ses doth vse and the Apostle obserueth out of him as a verie materiall point is of vs to be marked For first the couenant was made betweene God and the people then it was raâ—â—â—â— by the blood euen so because Christ must needs make this couenant and set downe thâ— s hâ— s last will and Testament therefore his blood 〈◊〉 must of necessitie bee after the 〈◊〉 of this his last will so that although that blood of the 〈◊〉 Testament was 〈◊〉 before the words were spoken yet it is not needfull it should so bee in the newe Testament Nay it can not so bee because hee must maâ— e this conâ—â—â—â— whilest yet hee was â—â—â— e and no other coulde make it for him Then do hee confirme 〈◊〉 by his bloâ—â— shedding which was afterwardes vpon the crosse whereof that bloud of the olde Testament was but a shadowe And thus I trust iust cause appeareth to denie his argument And then that which followeth that Christ therefore must be sacrificed in his last supper without 〈◊〉 further labour falleth to the grâ—â—â—â— As for the fiue sundrie arguments alledged by him in the â—â— th Chapter of the aforesaâ— de booke it is no marâ—â—â—â— though master Beâ—â— armine make no great account of the same For he cannot proue out of them that Christ in hâ— s last supper did offer vp his owne bodie to God ◠〈◊〉 2 3â— and his blood in forme of breed and wâ—â—â— His arguments are taken out of the story of Hely the 2. out of the Prouer. 9.1 2 The third out of Esay 19 21. The fourth out of Esay 66 21 â—â— d Ier. 33.17 18 the fifth out of Dan. â— 11 12 and 12 11 Read the places who so will and it shall easily appeare that they serue not to proue that which Bellarmine would and therefore I passe them ouer thus briefly But the mighte argument the wâ—â— ght whereof well beare downe all before it is taken out of Malachy I haue no pleasure in you saith the Lord of hostes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sunne vnto the going downe of the same my name 〈◊〉 great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shall 〈◊〉 offred vnto my name and a pure offering for my name 〈◊〉 great among the heatheÌ„ saith the Lord of hosts Which place to be vnderstood of a sacrifice properly so called 〈◊〉 not of spirituall sacrifices master Bellarmine will proue by sundry arguments The first is drawne from the Hebrew word which the Prophet vseth there which master Bellarmine will not in any wise haue to be vsed but for those sacrifices that are properly so called And yet in this very booke a little before Cap. â— he confesseth that sacrifice that is called by the same name to be But as a part or as it were the sâ—â—â— ce of another sacrifice And that answer did then as he thought serue his turne to stop the mouth of Kemnitius But now hee will haue it not onely to be a sacrifice but euen a most proper sacrifice But by that word and 〈◊〉 that place we are taught that the sacrifices of Christians shal be the true sacrifices not consisting onely of outwarde shew but hauing that 〈◊〉 seasoning and true sâ—â— ceritie which through Iesus Christ shal be acceptable vnto God And that singlenes of heart was signified by that Mincha which was commanded to be offered by the people of God with their dayly sacrifices Therefore the name proueth not strongly inough the sacrifice for which it is brought His second argument is taken out of that worde Cleane
is as strong as the second and is this Breaking cannot be spoken wel of the bodie and in this place which is broken for you cannot be true of the bread for the bread is not broken for vs therefore it must be vnderstoode of Christs bodie in forme of bread In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar translation which somtime he and his fellowes doe highly extoll for that saith which shal be deliuered And so doe Chrysostome Ierome Primatius Theophilact yea and Thomas of Aquine also al of them expounding these very words Epist 3 And Cyprian in his second booke of Epistles and so doe our English Remists translate it likewise Al whose translations do sufficiently proue that they espied not any such mysterie in that worde is broken but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true sence of it shal be deliuered to signifie that the body of Christ should suffer the torments vpon the crosse which S. Paul did expresse by the word of breaking And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine who woulde faine haue the Eucharist to be a sacrifice say it is a Representatiue sacrifice of Christs passiō 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. by which passion hee gaue his body to death for vs. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representatiue sacrifice read and peruse who so will the words of the institution it will not be found that our Sauiour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the vse of the sacrament which then he instituted As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speake of the shedding of the cup not of the bloud Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28 Mar. 14.24 make the matter more plaine and tell vs that the bloud of Christ is shed Doth not this wringing wresting of scriptures to force them from their true and natural sence to serue their turne manifestly argue that it must needs bee a weake tottering building that is raysed vpon so bad foundations and that it is but for want of better proofe that they are faine to scrape togither such poore helps The second argument of M. Bellarmines to proue a sacrifice by the institution is this in effect Christs body bloud are receiued in the Eucharist therefore they cannot but be sacrificed Which argumēt for vs to deny it is sufficient seeing that M. Bellarmine himselfe seemeth to inforce this only against them that confesse a real presence in with vnder the bread and yet deny the sacrifice But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties wherof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist M. Bellar. can finde them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests who are willed to sacrifice in these words if ye wil trust Bellar. Do this Who would euer haue gathered thus that had eies to looke vpon the words of the institution You must Doe this ergo you must sacrifice Yea Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter to be half ashamed of this argument and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius because they say that with the papists in that place those words To do is to sacrifice and therfore it needeth no farther answer But for the act of sacrifising it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out neither knoweth he howe to distinguish betweene that act I meane the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he and other actions in the supper And yet master Bellarmine is sure that such a thing there is there but where to finde it he cannot tell Is this thinke you good dealing for them that should be good guides vnto others to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themselues The words for a sacrament are very plaine but if you would follow with a bloud-hound you can neuer finde a sacrifice out of those wordes As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers they shall haue this answere The Eucharist is in sundry respectes called a sacrifice A sacrifice of the fathers not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of praiers and thankes giuings and duties of loue but also and that especially because it is a memoriall of the true sacrifice which Christ offered for vs vpon the crosse Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in saying that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which we deny not but that it is a sacrifice properly so called which the papists affirme but cannot proue Argument 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no answer for it is so weak that euery child may see the fault of it For out of those wordes Act. 13.2 As they ministred vnto the Lord speaking of Paul Barnabas others ministring seemeth to be or may be taken for sacrifycing ergo it is takē there for sacrifycing saith M. Bellar. Iudas seemed to be a true seruant of Christ but was not Lib. 1. de M◠ssa ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to say such a thing may be therfore it is so Argument 8 Rhem. Test De missa li. 1 cap. 14 But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinths which the Papists make their strong bulwarke maister Bellarmine findeth three arguments His first argument is this Euerie altar which in deed is an altar is builded for offering of sacrifices But the Lords table after a sort is an altar therefore it is for offering of sacrifices We will not striue with master Bellarmine much for this point for we will confesse that such sacrifices are offered vpon the altar as maister Bellarmine confesseth the altar to be The Lordes table saith he is a kinde of altar or an altar after a sort So we say that sacrifices after a sort namely spirituall sacrifices are offered thereupon His second reason out of this place is a lowde lie For thus hee saith For the Apostle speaketh plainly that we that are faithfull doe so receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord at the table of the Lord as the Iewes their sacrifices or the Gentiles their meates offered to Idols on their altars or tables And because hee cannot proue this to bee true you must trust him of his owne worde for he bringeth no proofe at all Let the indifferent reader peruse the place and marke his false dealing with it The wordes cited by him begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter and continue vnto the 22. the summe whereof is this as they that consider the place may see As by participating at the Lords table you are made partakers of Christ and ioyned togither amongst your selues in one bodie verse 16 17 so by participating at the table of Idols you are made partakers of them and ioyned in fellowship with the Idolaters But that which he telleth vs is so plaine in these wordes cannot be gathered out of them And this
also is a sufficient answere to his thirde argument that hee wringeth out of these wordes Whereby he will force Saint Paule whether hee will or not to finde out an offering in the Eucharist because he saith they that eate the offrings are partakers of the altar Out of which place as hee cannot probably conclude any thing to proue a sacrifice in the eucharist so hee plainely proclaimeth that if it should be proued that their masse were a sacrifice yet the priest only is the better for it because the priest onlie eateth vp all For They that eate the offrings are partakers of the Altar The second sort of proofes which Bellarmine promised is gathered out of the fathers Lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. And the first argument of that sort is drawen from the wordes of sacrifice sacrificing offering oblation and such like Chap. 15. Why the fathers vse thus to speake of the Eucharist I haue shewed a little before in the answere to his sixte argument But nowe maister Bellarmine proueth that a sacrifice may be both commemoratiue and represent an other thing as did the sacrifices in the Leuiticall law and also be a true sacrifice indeede which is most true and thereupon concludeth that this sacrifice representatiue in the eucharist is also a true sacrifice But this his argument hath no necessarie consequence for the Leuiticall sacrifice must needes be a sacrifice truely so called that by the death of the beast offered vp and by the shedding of that blood the death blodshedding of Christ might be the more liuely represented to the faithfull and more constantly beleeued of them which thing being in trueth perfourmed and Christ Iesus the true facrifice indeede being offered Heb. 10.26 There remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne Moreouer in those sacrifices that they might bee knowen to be sacrifices instituted and appointed of God we see how the thing sacrificed the manner of sacrificing and all the circumstances are plainely set downe and commaunded by God And on the contrary in this sacrifice which they seeke to maintaine all things are obscure not so much as a probable shew of any commaundement or of any institution of a sacrifice Therefore the Iewish sacrifice can be no proofe for the sacrifice of the masse Secondly he will prooue that in the eucharist is not only a representatiue sacrifice because the fathers speake sometimes of oblations and sacrifices in the plural number and therefore there are more sacrifices than that one representatiue but he taketh more paines then he needeth for we teach that besides the representation of Christs sacrifice we offer in the Eucharist the sacrifices of prayers prayses and such like spirituall oblations Thirdly baptisme saith hee is a sacrament representing Christes death but is not called of any of the fathers a sacrifice offered to God therefore the only representation of Christs death and bloudshedding cannot make the Eucharist be called a sacrifice For baptisme it representeth vnto vs the efficacy and vertue of Christes death rather than the death it selfe So that there is great difference betweene these two sacraments For the sacrament of the Lords supper representeth the sacrifice it selfe which he vpon the crosse did offer euen the tormenting and mangling of his body the shedding of his bloud So that there is much more cause why the Eucharist should be called a sacrifice than baptisme Fourthly M. Bellarmine imagineth that if it were not indeed a very proper sacrifice we might in the Eucharist say to God truely I offer to thee this gift accept Lord this sacrifice And moreouer he chargeth vs that we doe wholy abstaine from such wordes and greatly reproue them for vsing of them And yet in one short praier vsed after the receiuing of the communion with vs we pray thus Accept this our sacrifice of praise thankesgiuing And after We offer and present vnto thee o Lord our selues our soules bodies to be a reasonable holy liuely sacrifice to thee Which wordes doe not only answere the slaunder wherewith he vniustlie chargeth our churches but also sheweth that well we maie vse those words I offer to thee this gift accept Lord this sacrifice although we take not vpon vs to offer Christ really in the Eucharist As for the hyperbolicall speeches which the fathers vse sometimes which is his first reason we learne thereby rather with howe reuerent an affection we shoulde come to these sacramentes than what wee shoulde thinke the thinges themselues to be For howe can it els bee true that Bellarmine himselfe out of the Greeke fathers alleadgeth that they call it a sacrifice terrible and full of horrour which cannot be properly verified of the sacrifice propitiatorie which they woulde haue it to bee for that must needes bee sweete and comfortable vnto vs in it is only grace and mercy no horrour no terrour Lastly because the fathers acknowledge in this sacrifice of the Eucharist that there is that honor performed which is due to God only therefore woulde master Bellarmine conclude that it must needs be more than a sacrifice of representation And we doe easily yeeld vnto him that it is also called a sacrifice of the fathers yea of vs also in respect of the spirituall sacrifices therein offered And this yet must be noted that properly to speake of the Eucharist it is but a sacrament But in the respectes aforesaide De missa li. 1. cap. 16. it is sometime called yet vnproperly a sacrifice But saith master Bellarmine the fathers make mention of an altar therefore they also proue thereby that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for there is no Altar but in respect of a reall sacrifice But the first altars were but tables of wood not altars of stone such as are now for the popish sacrifice in these daies commaunded and these altars of worde they caried about from place to place as occasion serued and therfore although the names of altars be found in the most ancient fathers almost that are yet popish altars are not thereby proued neither were there any altars of stone before the time of Siluester who liued more than three hundred yeares after Christ For hee first commaunded that stone altars should be made as their freind Gerson writeth And therefore as they call it sometime an altar so sometime they call it a Table Lib. 4. cont Floratum De consecrat dist 1. cap. Nemo as doeth Clement who they say was one of the first bishops of Rome he twice within few wordes mentioneth the Lords Table If therefore it be a good argument thus to reason The fathers do sometime mention an altare for the eucharist therefore they thought it was a sacrifice for there needeth no altar but for a sacrifice I am sure this is as good an argument Somtime they speake of a table for the eucharist as out of Athanasius Theodoret Augustine this Clement and others is most plaine and therefore they thought it not to be a sacrifice for
there is no sacrifice vpon a table but onely vpon an altar De missa lib. 1. cap. 17. Yet master Bellarmine roueth againe with his vncertaine proofes The fathers saieth hee speake of priests therefore they will haue a sacrifice in the eucharist And why may not the fathers vnderstand priests as wee doe in our booke of making of ministers and in our booke of common prayer who succeede in the publike ministery in the church the priests of Leui Leuit. 10.11 Deut. 17.5 mal 2.7 not in sacrificing for the sacrifices are ended but in teaching for that was also the priests office and is now the office of them that we sometime call priests And yet we although we vse the name do not alow that popish sacrifice which Bellarmine would haue And why then should this be holden for a good argument The fathers speake sometimes of priests Therefore the eucharist is a reall sacrifice or a sacrifice after the proper signification of that word As for that which hee hath in the eighteenth chapter of that his first booke of the masse is almost all one with that which hee saide in the fifteenth chapter and therefore it is answered before But his last proofe Chap. 19 whereby hee will out of the fathers prooue a sacrifice is as himselfe saith vnanswerable vnlesse we do vtterly reiect the fathers The fathers desire not to be credited against the trueth They were men they might erre Onely Gods word is perfectly true And therfore as wee do them no wrong to trie and examine their doctrine by that rule and square that cannot deceiue How the fathers are to be receiued so if it be not agreeable to that word of trueth wee must rather confesse all men to be liars than swarue one iote from that perfect way And therefore it is not absurd if wee leaue the fathers when they goe without their guide of Gods written word or speake without their warrant of Gods infallible trueth So that although wee are content to shew how the father 's wrested by them either must or may be vnderstoode that by that meanes wee may pull from them that visard of antiquitie consent of fathers wherewith they cloke and colour their dangerous and deceitfull heresies yet we receiue the fathers but as men and therfore no masters to giue vs new lawes but yet men of excellent gifts in their time and alwayes worthy of much reuerence and honour But yet this is not a good argument The fathers haue somctime written this or haue done this Therefore it is true or it is good But let vs view his vnanswerable argument If the eucharist were not a sacrifice the fathers would not haue offred the same for peace safety and sundry such things but they did therfore it is a sacrifice Marke howe hee prooueth that they did offer the eucharist for such things Hee first alleageth Chrysostome in his homilies to the people of Antioch Hom. 79. Hom. 7â— and then also vpon Mathew most notably belying that father as though he spake thereof the sacrifice in the eucharist whereas the first whole Homily is altogether of praier and Chrysostome there sheweth that they pray in deed for the whole world and for sundry persons but of standing at the altar not a word And therefore master Bellarmine belieth that father And in the second place Wee pray first for them that are possessed the second for the penitent c. Is this good dealing to auouch that that ancient father saith in those places that the Eucharist was offered for such things Other falsifications of these very places I omit as not much materiall When I heard his great cracke I imagined this shot would haue made a great breach but it is like to doe no hurt at all Then for that which he alleageth out of same Augustine that the Eucharist was offered by one for freeing a certaine house from euill spirites De ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. It is true that he reporteth such a thing and addeth That hee prayed as earnestly as he could that that vexation might cease First it is not saint Augustine himselfe that doth this but another and this fact is not either commended or allowed to be wel done of saint Augustine But they wil answere The euill spirits left the house And therefore the euent prooueth the fact to be good Not so but it is an argument of Gods might and mercie that can and will by euill or the abuse of good meanes bring to passe good things Secondly it may iustly be doubted whether saint Augustine did impute this effect vnto that sacrifice that he speaketh of or the earnest prayers that were made for it Yea it seemeth rather that he imputeth it vnto the sacrifice of prayer than any other sacrifice Moreouer it seemeth that as in the dayes of saint Paul there were that were baptized ouer the dead either to declare their hope of the resurrection or to testify their dying vnto sinne or for such other considerations so in these dayes of S. Augustine some vpon such occasions would celebrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ by that assurance and pledge of Gods loue to stirre vp and confyrme their faith that with more earnestnesse and faith they might craue Gods helpe But if master Bellarmine would haue this to be a catholike doctrine that hath but one or few examples he will haue Vincentius Lirinensis flat contrary to him Confess li. 9. cap. 12. So that also that is alleaged of the oblation for his mother it can not bee denied that there were at that time some such abuses creeping into the church of God concerning that charitable superstition that I may so terme it of prayer for the dead of the which some had good liking some liked not But out of them it is hard to establish a strange doctrine in Gods church and such as Gods word is not acquainted withall But euen by that booke of S. Augustine it is plaine and namely by the next chapter to the place alleadged that S. Augustine did not once thinke of any propitiatory sacrifice that was in the masse And I would also desire the indifferent Reader to iudge how litle such matters sauour of the maiestie of that spirit which is seene in the scriptures Bellarmines last sort of arguments are drawen from reason The first is grounded vpon this principle De missa lib. 1. cap. 20. there is no religion without an externall sacrifice which is most false for God when he seeth his people to whom he commanded those external sacrifices to repose themselues too much vpon them doeth not onely reiect those sacrifices which himselfe appointed but also teacheth wherein true religion consists Isa 1.15 16. and Mich. 6.8 Yea marke the whole scriptures it wil appeare that faith obedience are the especiall things that god requireth of vs that the sacrifices directed therto His second argument taken from reason is this The