from that imputation Well and what of that Marry Chrysostome and Hierome do argue saith he that euen so in the law of grace men infected with the soules leprosie are either to be bound and declared obstinate by the Priest if they will not repent or repenting and confessing the same are to be cleansed therefrom by the Priests absolution First Chrysostome in the place by him alleaged saith nothing either of confession or absolution but noting by occasion what grace is administred by Priests in baptisme that u Chrysost de Sacerdot lib. 3. Authores nobis sunt natiuitatis eius quam à Deo habemus c. atque adeò adoptionis eius qua nos per gratiam silij Dei sumus effecti Corporiâ— lepram purgare seu verius dicam haud purgare quidem sed purgatos probaâ—e Iudaeorum Sacerdotibus solis licebat c. At verò nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram verum animae sordes non dico purgatas probare sed purgare prorsus concessum est they are as he speaketh authours of our new birth and of that adoption whereby we are made the sonnes of God he addeth further thereof thus Only the Priests of the Iewes might purge the leprosie of the body or so speake more truly not purge it but giue warrant of them that were purged but to our Priests it is granted I will not say to approue such as are purged but to purge not the leprosie of the body but the vncleannesse of the soule This the Priest doth sacramentally and ministerially in baptisme when he x Acts 2. 38. baptizeth in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to the remission of sinnes and what is this to M. Bishops turne As little is there in the words of Hierome who saith that y Hieron in Mat. c. 16. Quomodo ibi Sacerdoâ— facit leprosum mundâ— vel immundum non quò Sacerdotes leprosos faciant immundos sed quò habeant notitiam leprosi vel non leprosi possint discernere qui mundus quiuè immundus fit sic hic alligat vel soluit Episcopus Presbyter noÌ„â—os qui insontes sunt vel nâ—xij sed pro â—fficio suo cum peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit qui soluendus as the Priest in Moses law did make the leaper cleane or vncleane not for that he did so indeede but only tooke notice who was a leaper and who was not and did discerne betwixt the cleanâ— and the vncleane so here the Bishop or Priest doth binde or loose not binde them which are innocent or loose the guilty but when according to his office he heareth the variety of sinnes he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed We see here the office and duty of the Priest to discerne betwixt man and man to acquit the innocent to bind the guilty by the publike censure of the Church to decide who is to be holden for loosed with God who for bound all which belong to the outward and publike discipline and gouernement of the Church but as for auricular confession or priuate absolution and pâ—nance thereto appertayning there is not so much as one word spoken thereof It is plainly here to be seene why M. Bishop quoted the authours only but did not set downe their wordes because the Reader would haue discerned his folly that would set downe such impertinent stuffe nothing at all concerning the point in hand Yet he hopeth that he hath said that that may suffice for answere to my particulars whereas he hath brought no tollerable proofe or probability for any one particular and therefore leaueth vs to resolue that none of those points of religion by me mentioned were euer knowen to the old Fathers W. BISHOP §. 4. I Might easily adde how the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine were both prefigured by Melchisedechs Host in bread and Genes 14. wine and fore-told by the Prophet Malachy and what a Malach. 1. liuely type Manna that Angelicall and delicate foode was of Christs body in the Sacrament And how the supreme authority of one headouer all the whole Church and that to belong to a Bishop and not to the lay Magistrate was not obscurely shadowed but liuely represented by the Soueraigne power that the high Priest of the old Testament had ouer all the rest To determine and end all doubts Deuter. 17. and controuersies arising about any hard point of the law As for consecrating of Priests and hallowing of Churches and Altars with all Vestiments and Ornaments thereunto appertaining and for the seuerall feasts and fasts there is so great resemblance betweene them and vs that Protestants commonly cry out against vs for the ouer great affinity that is betwixt the old law and our religion But as they are to be reproued of indiscreet zeale against the rites of Moyses law which were of God and good for the time and most of them figures and types of the law of grace according to that of the Apostle All 1. Cor. 10. things chanced to them in figure and were written for our correction and instruction so on the other side some strange defluxion and dâ—stillation of corrupt humours maruailously darkned M. Abbots sore eyes that he could not discerne nor find in the whole law of Moises any one shadow of that which we now practise May not these worthy words which S. Paul pronounced of the blinded Iewes in his time be verified of him Their senses 2. Cor. 3. were dulled vntill this day when Moyses is read a veile is put vpon their heart that is they reading and hearing the law of Moyses doe no more vnderstand it then doth a man hoodded or that hath a veile before his eyes see what is before him or else M. Abbot reading the old Testament could not choose but haue seene much of our religion and many articles of our faith there recorded And albeit we teach most mysteries of our faith to haue beene in the law of Moyses prefigured and foretold yet is it very absurd to say as M. Abbot doth that we beleeue no more articles of faith then they did for we were by the Sonne of God our blessed Sauiour giuen to vnderstand many high points of beliefe which were not reueiled vnto them as hath beene before declared R. ABBOT ANd I might as easily answere that the Popish Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ as they call it vnder the formes of bread and wine is an absurd nouelty neither prefigured by Melchizedecke nor fore-told by Malachy the Prophet nor euer knowen to any ancient Father of the Christian Church Strange it is that a reall propitiatory sacrifice of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine should bee deriued from Melchizedecke with whom we see no token or semblance thereof of whom it is not said that he offered bread and wine but only that
a Genes 14. 18. hee brought forth bread and wine and that as Ambrose and Hierome say out of the Hebrew writers b Ambros ad Hebr. cap. 7. Hieron ad Euagr Nec mirum si Melchâ—zedec victori Abraham obuiam processerit in reseâ—â—ion em tam ipsius quam pugnatorum eius panesâ—â—mumque protulerit For the refreshing of him and his souldiers in which meaning c Ioseph Anâ—iq Iudaic. l. 1. â— 11. Milites Iosephus namely Abrahami hospitalitèr habuit nihil â—is ad victum decsse passus doth vnderstand it And if M. Bishop will needes haue it translated by the word of offering as his fellowes are wont greatly to wrangle to that intent yet Ambrose so also applyeth it that d Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Occurrit illi Melâ—lnsedec Sacâ—rdos â—btulit ei paâ—â—e vinii he offered to Abraham bread and wine thereby excluding all necessity of construction of sacrifice to God But if yet we shall perforce take it of offering to God we conceiue of it according to that which Cyprian saith thatâ— e Cyprian l. 2. Ep. 3. Domiâ—uâ— noster Iesus Christus Sacrificium Dâ—o Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idâ—m quod Melchisedec obtulâ—rat id est panem vinii suâ—â— scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ our Lord Iesus Christ offering a sacrifice to God the Father offered the very same that Melchisedec had offered that is bread and wine euen his owne body and bloud If the sacrifice of Christ and Melchisedecke be the very same and Melchisedecke also offered the body and bloud of Christ as these words import then cannot our sacrifice be a true and real sacrifice of Christs body and bloud because Melchisedecks was not so Christ as yet not hauing taken his body and bloud and therefore must both that and this be vnderstood to be only the mysterie and signification thereof And this interpretation of the sacrifice on both sides Hierome confirmeth when of our Sauiour Christs institution of the Sacrament he saith f Hieron in Mat. 26. Assumit panem ad verum Paschae traÌ„sgreditur Sacramentum vâ— quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedec suÌ„mi Dei Sacerdos panem vinii offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corpâ—ris sanguiniâ— repraesentaret Christ taketh bread and goeth to the true Sacrament of the Passeouer that as Melchisedec the Priest of the high God in prefiguring of him offering bread and wine had done so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his body and bloud There is therefore both in the one and in the other not the very truth of the body and bloud of Christ but only a representation of the truth thereof euen as Chrysostome on the one side expresseth when he saith that g Chrys Op. imperfec hom 11 Haec vasa sactificata inquibus non â—st verii coâ—pus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur in the holy vessels is contained not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of his body And vnlesse it be thus it cannot stand which Ambrose concerning this offering of Melchisedec saith that h Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Intellige Sacramenta quâ— accipis anteriâ—ra esse quà m sint Moysi Sacramenta c. the Sacraments which we receiue are more ancient then the Sacraments of Moses for how can that be if our Sacraments be truly and really the body and bloud of Christ which Melchisedecks were not Againe where God by Malachy saith i Mat. 1. 11. In euery place incense shall be offered vnto me and a pure offering whose eyes are so sharpe as that in those words he can discerne the Popish sacrifice of the Masse We reade here of incense and a pure offering but this roome is too little for the building of so large a house their Masse cannot stand within the compasse of this ground And when we consider how the Fathers expound the same Tertullian one where generally of k Tertul. adu ludaeos Desacrisicijs spiritualibus addit dicens In omni loco sacrificia munda offerâ—tur spirituall sacrifices another where of l Idem cont Marc. l. 4. Sacrificium mundum scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura sincere prayer out of a pure censcience Hierome of m Hieron in Zacha. c 8. Sacrificium mundum nequaquam in victimis veteris Testamenti sed in sanctuate Euangelica puritatis the sanctity and holinesse of Euangelicall purity Eusebius of n Euseb de demonstrat Euang lib. 1. c 6. Sacrificium quod appellaturpurum facimus per puras actiones pure and godly doings Austin of o Aug. cont lit Petil. l. 2. c. 86. Viuum Sacrificium de quo dictum est Immola Deo sacrificium laudis the liuely sacrifices of praise and thanks-giuing Theodoret of p Theodoret. in Mal. c. 1. Debitum honorem praestabuÌ„t accomodatum cultum adhibebunt the due honour and conuenient worship of God exemplifying the same by the words of Christ q John 4. 23. The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth and by the words of the Apostle r 1. Tim. 2. 8. Let men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting and Hierome by the words of the Psalme Å¿ Psal 141. 2. Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense and the lifting vp of my hands as an euening sacrifice these things I say considered may we not be thought to be out of our wits if we shall beleeue them that the place must needes be vnderstood of their monstrous sacrifice That Manna was a type of the body of Christ no Christian man doubteth but that it was a type of Christs body as really in the Sacrament no wise man beleeueth and the reason wherby t Answere to M. Perkins Aduertisement sect 56. See the Confutation elsewhere he goeth about to proue it is there declared to be vaine So haue I also u Of Traditions sect 21. formerly shewed that the example of the high Priest amongst the Iewes giueth no manner warrant to the supreme authority of one head ouer the whole Christian Church that the high Priest amongst the Iewes had no such supremacy as they claime to the Pope that reason teacheth such a supremacy to be the manifest and certaine danger of the Church and experience hath found it to be the very ruine and desolation thereof As for their according with the Iewish ceremonies in consecrating of Priests and hallowing of Churches and Altars and Vestments c. it is a slender proofe for the finding of their religion amongst the Iewes because they haue borrowed many ceremonies from the Pagans also and yet they will not say that their religion was amongst the Pagans Their emuâ—aâ—â—on of those ceremonies we iustly cry out against as preposterous and absurd because they being as M. Bishop saith types and figures of the law of
in compage corporis Christi Cuius rei Sacramentum est quòd vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Ideo in huius sanctificatione distributionis praeparatione existimo Apostolum iussisse propriè fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est orationes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the prayer that is made at or vpon a vow Now all those things are vowed saith he which are offered vnto God specially the oblation of the holy Altar by which Sacrament is set forth our other greatest vow whereby wee haue vowed that we will abide in Christ to wit in the vnity of the body of Christ The signe or Sacrament whereof is in this that we being many are one bread and one body Therefore doe I thinke that in the consecration of the Sacrament and preparation for the distribution of it the Apostle appointed those prayers to be made which he setteth downe by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where it is worthy to be noted by the way how St. Austin crosseth M. Bishops Popish doctrine concerning vowes as if the same were only d See of Vowes sect 1. c. of arbitrary deuotions not of necessary duties whereas St. Austin maketh it our greatest or one of our greatest vowes wherby we haue vowed to abide in Christ and in the vnity of the body of Christ therein vpholden by Leo Bishop of Rome who maketh it e Leo in Anniuers serm 3. Quid tam saâ—erdotale quà m vouere de conscientiam puram c. Quod cùm omnibus per Dei gratiam commune sit factum the most Priestly worke of all Christians to vow vnto God a pure conscience which are not a matter arbitrary but necessary for vs. But as touching the point in hand what St. Austin calleth here the holy Altar we see how he hath before called it the table of the Lord. And that the Altar was no other but a table of wood it appeareth very plainly by Optatus who mentioning the Donatists breaking of the Altars saith that f Optat. cont Parmen lib. 6. Quod vt immundo opere sacrilegis haustibus â—iberetur calida de fragmentis Altarium facta est Et post Quis fideliuns nescit in peragendis mysterijs ipsa ligna linteamine operiri Inter ipsa Sacramenta vâ—lamen potuit tangi non ligâ—um they warmed their wine with the fragments or peeces of the Altars and who knoweth not saith he that in the administring of the holy Sacraments the wood that is the wooden table is couered with a linnen cloth so that the couer may be touched but not the wood This table was termed an Altar by imitation of the Iewish custome of speech for that g Ibid. Altaria in quibus vota populi membra Christi portata sunt c. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguinis Christi the peoples vowes as Optatus speaketh that is their offerings and the members or body of Christ were borne and laied thereupon the Altar being as he saith the seate or place of the body and of the bloud of Christ. This consecration of the body and bloud of Christ they called an oblation or sacrifice h De consecrat dist 2. cap. Hoc est Vocatur ipsa immolatio car nisquae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio as it was called the Passion Death and crucifying of Christ not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie because it was the Sacrament and commemoration of Christs oblation and sacrifice of his owne body and bloud For i Aug. Epist 23. Nonne semel in seipso immolatus est Christus tamen in Sacramento noÌ„ solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates sed omni die populis immolatur nec vtique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim sacrameÌ„ta quandam similitudine earâ— rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non baberent omninò Sacramenta noÌ„ essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sient ergò secundum quendam modum Sacramentâ— corporis Christi corpus Christi est c. Sacraments saith Austin haue a semblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments and because of this semblance they take the names of the things themselues As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine manner the body of Christ according to the former phrase of Optatus so though Christ in himselfe were but once offered yet in the Sacrament he is said euery day to be offered for the people namely because there is euery day in the Sacrament a memoriall and semblance of that once offering It is truly said by Cyprian that k Cypr. l. 2. Epist 3. Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer and because the passion of Christ is not now really acted therefore the sacrifice which we offer is no true and reall sacrifice Now therefore the oblation of the Altar of which St. Austin speaketh hath no reference to the Masse which they hold to be a proper and reall sacrifice but is described by himselfe here againe to import only our Communion which is the celebration of the passion of Christ when of the prayers which hee referreth to the oblation of the Altar hee saith againe as wee haue seene that the Apostle appointed the same to be made at the sanctifying or consecrating of the Sacrament and preparation for the distributing thereof The sanctifying and distributing of the Sacrament is our Communion but as for the Popish Masse it importeth not any distribution to the people but only offering to God albeit they mocke both God and Men by retaining still the wordes of the old Communion saying euery day l Canon Missae Vt quotquot ex hac Allarts participatione sacrosanctum 〈◊〉 tui corpus sai guinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur That all we who by this participation of the Altar shall receiue the sacred body and bloud of thy sonne may be fulfilled with thy heauenly benediction and grace whereas saue only the Priest none are partakers of the Sacrament but only once in the yeare and then partakers only of the Sacrament of Christs body but secluded from his bloud But now strange it should seeme that the Apostle in those wordes should bee thought to haue any intention of the sacrifice of the Masse who in the Epistle to the Hebrewes if it were he whilest he destroyeth the Iewish Priest-hood for the aduancing of the Priest-hood of Christ argueth impregnably to the disauowing of all reall sacrifice thenceforth in the Church of Christ Whilest he affirmeth but m Heb. 7. 23. 24 one Priest in the new Testament in steede of many in the old he absolutely taketh away all the ranke and succession of Popish Priests Therefore Cyril saith and
proprietas Ecclesia ea est vt Catholica nempe vniuersalis vocetur The third property of the Church is that it is called Catholike that is vniuersall or might the Catechisme say without absurdity that Catholike is Vniuersall and must I be absurd because I say The Catholike Church is the Vniuersall Church Surely when words of one language are borrowed to speciall vse in another the reddition of them in the tongue to which they are borrowed is taken with the learned as supplying the place of a definition and it is thereby made to appeare whether they be properly and rightly vsed or vnproperly abused M. Bishop and his fellowes abuse the name of Catholikes and of the Catholike Church which English men doe not so readily vnderstand Let them giue the signification of the word and call themselues vniuersals their Church the vniuersall Church and then all that haue will to vnderstand can easily see their foolery and are ready to deride them But this they hide vnder the veile and couer of a Greeke word and wee that the truth may be the better seene are necessarily to discouer and therefore iust cause had I to say The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church and he is an absurd man to taxe it as a thing absurd Yet notwithstanding I wish the Reader duly to obserue how that taxation stand 〈…〉 with the other that the same proposition of mine is captious For why is it captious Marry because the Catholike Church doth signifiâ— both the whole body of the Church compacted of all the particular members in which sense no one pâ—rticular Church can be called the Catholike Church because it is not the whole body and secondly the Catholike Church doth also designe and note very properly euery particular Church that embraceth the true Christian faith Where we may wonder that within the compasse of so few lines the mans wits should so extremely faile him For if the Catholike Church and the vniuersall Church be one and the same thing as he hath already told vs and vniuersall be no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholike then how can it be which here he telleth vs that the Catholike Church signifieth both the whole body of the Church which is the vniuersall Church and doth also very properly designe and note euery particular true Christian Church If the Catholike Church be no distinct thing from the vniuersall Church then it cannot properly note or designe euery particular Church or if it doe properly designe euery particular Church then it is distinct from the vniuersall Church Tell vs M. Bishop how these things hang togither for if the vniuersall Church be the very signification of the Catholike Church then we cannot see how a particular Church can bee properly called the Catholike Church because no particular Church can properly be called the vniuersall Church As for the exception that here lyeth against vs that the Fathers in pointing to a particular assembly doubt not sometimes to vse the name of the Catholike Church I shewed it before to be no whit preiudiciall to that that wee say because they minded not in so doing to limit themselues to that particular assembly but in a particular assembly to demonstrate the vniuersall Church For to say in any Citty for distinction sake this is the Catholike Church what was it else but to say this is that Church which is vniuersally dispersed through the whole world euen as when a man to demonstrate the elements saith This is the aire this is the earth pointing to the aire or earth whereat he is present but therein intending to demonstrate the whole body of the aire or earth hauing continuation with that whereto he pointeth For as the Apostle directing his speech to the Church of Ephesus nameth l Act. 20. 28. The Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud and againe m 1. Tim. 3. 15. the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the pillar and ground of truth so speaking of a part as to conioyne it with the whole euen so no otherwise was it that in noting any particular Church it was said This is the Catholike Church the whole Church being totum similare as I said before and the whole being subiect to be designed in any part But M. Bishop here saith that this was not only because the Church is totum similare but because each of the said particular Churches hath the same faith the same Sacraments and order of gouernment Which is as wisely and discreetly spoken as if he had said that this was not only because the Church in all parts thereof hath the same faith and sacraments but because the said particular Churches haue all the same faith and Sacraments For why is the Church said to be totum homogeneum or similare a body whose parts are all of the same nature kinde and being but because in all parts thereof there are the same faith and Sacraments or to vse the wordes of the Apostle n Ephes 4. 4. One body one spirit one hope of calling one Lord one faith one baptisme one God and Father of all who is aboue all and through all and in vs all Surely either M. Bishop was sleepy or else his wits were a wooll-gathering when he put in this exception Now then it was not said that the word Catholike is not or may not bee directed to any particular M. Bishop doth therein but meerely calumniate but I said and shewed that it is neuer rightly applied any way or to any particular but with implication of the vniuersall Church The faith is called Catholike because it is the faith of the vniuersall Church propagated and spred by the Apostles ouer the whole world Particular Churches are called Catholike and particular persons are called Catholikes as a man would say Vniuersalists for maintayning communion and fellowship of this faith with the Church of the whole world And as the name of the aire or the earth being absolutely vsed importeth that whole element whereof we speake but yet according to distinction of places we say The aire of London the aire of Oxford the aire of Winchester c. without restraining the name of the aire to any one place more then other and only meaning that part of the aire that is in such or such a place euen so whereas the name of the Catholike Church simply and absolutely vsed importeth the whole vniuersall Church the same notwithstanding is found to be distinguished by diuersity of places the Catholike Church of such a place or the Catholike Church of such a place not limiting the name of the Catholike Church to any one place more then other and in true propriety of speech meaning nothing else but that part of the Catholike Church that is in this or that place And therefore I formerly noted and thinke not vnfit here to be repeated that as Leo wrote himselfe o Leo. epist 12. Leo
the Catholike Church as well as we what tergiuersation doe I vse or how doe I leape backe from the point in question when by affirming our communion with them I affirme consequently our communion with the Catholike Church Forsooth the Church was not then Catholike Bee it so but it was then the same Church which was afterward to become Catholike a part of the Catholike Church and in com 〈…〉 nicating with a part of the Catholike Church we communicate with the whole because of the whole there is but one and the same saith Secondly if they were Christians by the same faith whereby we are so what absurdity do I commit in saying that they beleeued all the articles of faith that we beleeue so clearly I doe not say because they beleeued them not in those particular circumstances which by the story of the Gospell are knowen to vs but yet all the same and as clearly as wee beleeue those points of faith which are of those things that are yet to come And if they did so what hindereth but that we rightly conclude that those branches of the Roman faith which were not then sprung vp are only Romish additions and not any parts of the true Catholike faith Against this M. Bishop excepteth But good Sir did they beleeue that all their children were to be baptized and that all persons of riper yeares among them were to receiue the holy Sacrament of Christs body I haue answered him before that as touching outward signes and Sacraments there is difference betwixt them and vs and I now answere him further that as touching the power and effect of Sacraments they were in their Sacraments spiritually baptized as well as we and spiritually partakers of Christs body and bloud as well as we For u Leo in Natiu Christi ser 3. Verbi incaâ—natio haec contulit facienda quae facta c. Hoc magna pietatis Sacramentum quo totus iam mundus impletus est tam potens etiam in suis significationibus fuit vt non minùs adepti sine qui in illud credidere promissum quà m qui suscepere donatum the incarnation of Christ being yet to come saith Leo yeelded the same that it doth now being done and the great mysterie of godlinesse whereof now the whole world is full was so powerfull in the significations of it as that they attamed no lesse who beleeued therein being promised then they did who haue receiued it now giuen and performed And againe x IdeÌ„ de Pass Dom. ser 13. Sanguis vnius iusâ—â— quem nobis pater donauitqui â—um pro reconciliatione mundi credimus fusum hoc contulit patribus qui similitèr credidere fundâ—â—dum The bloud of one iust one which the father hath giuen vnto vs who beleeue the same to haue beene shed for the reconciliation of the world yeelded the same benefit to the Fathers who did beleeue that it should be shed Therefore we see that the Apostle as on the one side he saith of vs that we are y Col. 2. 11. circumcised because the effect of circumcision is with vs so saith of them also that they were z 1. Cor. 10. â— baptised because the grace and effect of baptisme was with them And thus Gregory saith that a Greg. Mor. l 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos valet aqua baptâ—matis hoc eâ—â—t apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides vel pro maioribus virtus sacrificij vel pro his qâ—i ex Abrahae stiâ—pe prodierant mysterium circumcisionis what the water of baptisme auaileth with vs the same with 〈◊〉 old Fathers did either faith only for infants or for them of elâ—â—â— yeares the power of Sacrifice or for them that came of the stocke of Abraham the Sacrament of circumcision And thus of their Sacraments whereto now answereth our Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the Apostle saith that therein b 1 Cor. 10. 4. they did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke For their Sacraments and ours c August in Ioan. tract 26. Sacramenta illa fuâ—runt in signis diuersa sunt sed in re quae significatur pariâ— sunt in signes are diuers faith St. Austin but in the thing signified they are both alike They that did eate Manna aright d Idem de vtil poâ—â—it cap. 1. Quicunque in Manna ChristuÌ„ intellexerunt â—undem quem nos cibum spirituilem manducauerunt did vnderstand Christ therein and thereby did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe euen the flesh of Christ and they that did drinke of the Rocke aright did therein also drinke of Christ euen the bloud of Christ for the Rocke was Christ that is e IdeÌ„ de TeÌ„p sor 108. Petra illa typum habuit corporis Christi c. Quod vtique non ad dâ—uinâ—tatem 〈◊〉 sed ad caraâ—m relatum est quae siticntium corda populorum perenni riuâ— sangâ—â—nis sui inundauit was the type or figure of the body of Christ saith Austin againe the same not being referred to his Deity but to the flesh which watered the hearts of the thirsty people by the euer-flowing riuer of his bloud f Idem de vtilit Poenit. cap. 1. Eundem â—rgò cibum eundem pâ—tum sed intelligentibus credentibus Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa sola aqua ille cibus esurienti potus iste sitienti nec ille net iste credenti credenti autem â—dem qui â—â—â—c There was saith he the same meat and the same drinke to them that had vnderstanding and faith but to them that vnderstood not the one was only Manna the other was only Water the one foode for the hungry the other drinke for the thirsty neither the one nor the other meate or drinke for the beleeuer but he that beleeued had the same that we haue now And if they had so if by Manna they did eate the body of Christ and by the Water of the Rocke they did drinke the bloud of Christ what hindereth then but that wee may say that though not by outward signe yet as touching inward grace and effect they were partakers of the Lords Supper Whereas he further asketh Can M. Abbot demonstrate that they had perfect faith of the Trinity beleeuing distinctly in three persons and one God I answere him that it may bee to him in â—ade of a demonstration that they did so because sundry Heathen Philosophers as g Cyril cont lulian lib. 1. Ex Hermete Orpâ—â—â— Porphyrio c. Vide Phil. Morn Plessi de verit Christ relig cap. 6. Cyril at large sheweth were not ignorant of this secret of the diuine nature who had no otherwise knowledge thereof but by some kinde of Tradition from the Fathers who had beene so instructed from God himselfe For can we thinke that it could be knowen to Philosophers and Pagans and that it was vnknowen to the Patriarchs
plainly set downe in Scripture are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life Yea he saith further that a Idem de vtilit cred cap. 6. Planè ita modificata vt nemo inde baurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad bauriendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio poscit accedat the doctrine of the Scripture is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he come to draw with deuotion and piety as true religion requireth him to doe Hereto adde how he vseth the wordes of the Apostle where to he alludeth in the sentence by me cited in his disputing against the Donatists b Idem de vnit Eccl. c. 11. 12. Quisquis aliud Euangelizauerit anathemâ— sit Aliud autem euangelizat qui perijsse dicit de câ—tâ—ro mudo Ecclesiam in parte Donati in sola Asrica reâ—nansisse dicit Ergo anathema sit Aut legat miâ—i hoc in scripturis sanctis noÌ„ sit anathema Whosoeuer preacheth any other thing accursed be he but he preacheth another thing who saith that the Church is perished out of the whole world and is remaining only in the Donatists therefore accursed be he or else let him reade it to me in the holy Scriptures that he may not be accursed Now then if by St. Austins iudgement there be found in Scripture all things belonging to faith and manners and there be no godly man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him if he be to be holden accursed that preacheth that which he cannot reade to vs out of the holy Scriptures then it appeareth that M. Bishop dealeth falsly in expounding the wordes of Austin and that they serue very fully to that purpose and meaning whereto I alleaged them and whereto without any ambiguity at all they most plainly sound But because we haue here in hand to informe the Roman Catholike I will conclude this place with the censure of a Roman Bishop Gregory the first who calleth c Gregor in 1. Reg. l. 2. c. 3. Quid cor animam Dei â—â—si sacram eius scripturam accipinâ— the holy Scripture the heart and soule of God and telleth vs that d Idem Moral l. 16. c. 16. Per cam Deus loquitur omne quod vult by it God speaketh all his will or all that he requireth and that so as that e Ibid. l. 18. c. 14. Eos ad sacrae authoritatis paginas vocat vt si vere loqui desiderent inde sumere debeant quid loquantur Qui ad verae praedicationis verba se praeparat necesse â—st vt causarum origines à sacris paginis sumat vt omne quod loquitur ad diuinae authoritatis sundamentum reuocet atque in câ— aedificium locutionis suae â—irmet he that desireth to speake or preach iruly must take from thence that which he speaketh and set â—h the grounds of his matters out of the sacred bookes that he may bring all that he speaketh to the foundation of diuine authority and thereupon settle the building of his speech He saith againe that f IdeÌ„ in Cant. c. 5. Sancti viri se consilijs Scripturae ex toto addicunt vt videâ—icet nihil agant nisi quod ex responsâ— Scripturarum audiunt c. Quia de quibuscunque scrupuliâ— in Scripturis consilium quaeritur fine minâ—ratione de omnibus ad plenum inuenitur holy men doe wholly addict themselues to the counsels or directions of the Scripture namely so as to doe nothing but what they heare by answere of the Scriptures because of whatsoeuer doubts aduise is sought for in the Scriptures namely concerning matters of faith and godlinesse it is there fully found of all things without exception and g Idem in Ezech. hom 15. Vniuersa nostra munitio in saâ—ro â—lâ—quâ—o cominetur all our munition or armour to wit against our ghostly enemies yea h Ibid. hom 9. In hâ—â— volumine cuncta quâ—â—dificant omniâ— qu◠〈…〉 diunt scripta contiâ—entur all things that doe â—difie all things that doe instruct are contained therein In all which speeches if Gregory say truth then it must stand good which I haue set downe that all our faith and religion is contained in the Scriptures and neither may the preacher speake nor the hearer receiue any thing that hath not confirmation and proofe out of the booke of God W. BISHOP §. 7. MAster Abbot hauing in few lines runne ouer foure large questions to wit first That the Prophets and Patriarks beleeued no principall points of the Roman faith secondly that Christ deliuered nothing but what the Iewes before hand beleeued thirdly that the Apostles preached the same and no other to the Gentiles fourthly that whatsoeuer they preached they afterwards wrote he fiftly addâ—th that the Protestants receiue and beleeue all the written word Whence he will haue it to follow finally that the Protestants are very good Iewes and doe iumpe iust with them in all articles of faith and consequently are true Catholikes so that in M. Abbots reckoning before you can be a true Protestant Catholike you must first become a good honest Iew. Behold what a round this man is driuen to walke and how many brakes of thâ—rnes he is forced to breake through ere he can come to make any shew of proofe that the Protestants are Catholikes the matter is so improbable I haue already declared how false euery one of his former foure propositions be the fift is as vntrue and more if more may be then any of the other and he plaies the sophister in it egregiously to beggâ— that which is principally in question How proues he that Protestants receiue and beleeue all the written word hath he so little wit and iudgement as to thinke that we would freely grant him that for to omit that they receiue not but reiect diuers bookes of the old Testament because they were not in the Canon of the Iewes or doubted of by some in the primitiue Church by which reason they might refuse as many of the new doe they rightly vnderstand and beleeue truly all that is written in that blessed booke of Gods word nothing lesse Doe they giue credit to our Sauiour â—esus Christ himselfe telling them This is my Mat. 26. 27. 28. Body that shall be broken for you this is my Bloud that shall be shedde for you Whose sinnes ye shall Ioh. 20. v. 23. forgiue on earth shall be forgiuen in heauen Thou Math. 16. v. 18. art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church c. and the gaâ—es of hell shall not preuaile against it Call the worke-men that had laboured in Math. â—0 v. 8. his vine-yard and pay them their hire Doe you see Iacob 2. v. 24. that by workes a man is iustified and not by faith only Is any man sicke among you let
if thou wouldest be a iudge only and wouldest not be mercifull but wouldest marke all our iniquities and seeke after them who could endure it who could stand before thee and say I am innocent who should stand in thy iudgement Our only hope therefore is for that with thee there is mercy If then with the iust iudge there be no hope without mercy then surely it is not for merit that the iust Iudge rendereth vnto vs the crowne of iustice but according to the law of faith he crowneth his owne gifts in vs and vs in them euen for his owne mercies sake M. Bishops arguments therefore are all vanished into winde and the indifferent Reader may well perceiue that the Protestants cause is better strengthened by St. Paul then that it neede to stand in feare of such Popish deluding sophismes A blinde shift he hath vnder pretence of g 2. Pet. 3. 16. some things in St. Pauls Epistles hard to be vnderstood to colour his cauilling at those things which are professedly disputed and most plainly and clearely spoken In all his Epistles saith he being vnderstood as he meant them there is not one word or syllable that maketh for the Protestants But how I maruell should wee attaine to vnderstand them as he meant them May we learne it of M. Bishop or are we to goe to the Pope to know it of him Surely a mad meaning shall we haue of St. Pauls Epistles if we will yeeld to take them after their meaning What way hath M. Bishop or the Pope to vnderstand St. Pauls meaning that we should not vnderstand it as well as they or what reason can they giue vs why we should not by St. Pauls wordes vnderstand his meaning as well as by their words we vnderstand theirs Was St. Paul so hard of speech as that he wanted wordes to declare his meaning or was he so desirous to conceale his meaning as that he would speake one thing and meane another yea the contrary to that hee spake Would hee bee a Protestant in wordes when in meaning he intended to be a Papist They bewray hereby what they are be thou out of doubt gentle Reader that they are no welwillers to the Apostles meaning that teach so many things contrary to the Apostles wordes We see how perspicuously frequently constantly hee teacheth the same that wee teach where to giue a meaning different from that which he saith is no other but maliciously to peruert his meaning Neither doe we affirme any thing by his wordes wherein we haue not the certaine testimony of the ancient Church concurring with vs as M. Bishop in all these points seeth to his owne confusion when as in the meane time it is enough with him to cite texts but whether they make any thing for proofe of that for which he citeth them it skilleth not And this we shall see in that plenty of plaine texts which he saith he hath to produce for their vncatholike faith which when I shall haue examined it will easily appeare to the Reader whether his discourse or mine bee the more idle If the tast that hee will giue vs bee no better then that which vvee haue already tasted it will vtterly distast the Reader vnlesse hee bee such a one as hath lost his tast CHAP. XIIII That the Scriptures are loosely and impertinently alleaged by the Papists for proofe of their false doctrines as namely of Iustification before God of Free-will of the Merit of single life of Relikes and Images of the Masse and Transubstantiation and sundry other such like ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul saith nothing for those points for the deniall whereof M. Bishop condemneth vs c. to Well M. Bishop let vs leaue Peter and Paul c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WE haue here a dainty dish of M. Abbots cookery a large rhetoricall conclusion deducted out of leane thinne and weake premises He assayed to make a shew out of the Apostle that there was not a little which would serue the Protestants turne and cited to that purpose certaine sentences out of him but so properly that some of them indeede seemed to sound for him though they had in truth a farre different sense others had neither sense nor sound nor sillable for him Neuerthelesse as though he had gotten a great conquest he singeth a triumph and striketh vp a braue victory that all in Peter and Paul is for the Protestant nothing for the Papist Afterward as it were correcting himselfe he addeth nothing but in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne which is one of the truest words he there deliuereth The Protestants indeede be iolly nimble witted fellowes that can make any thing serue at least for a shew of their cause and when all other things faile them Ad fabulas conuertuntur they turne their eares away 2. Tim. â— vers 4. from truth as the Apostle speaketh and fall to fables and one Robin good-fellow I woene for lacke of a better is brought vpon the stage to spit and cry out Fie vpon Peter fie vpon Paul that had not remembred to say one word for Popery but all for the Protestant Fie I say vpon such a cause that must be vnderpropt with such rotten baggage stuffe What shadow of likely-hood is there that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face or that Erasmus who was in most points a Catholike should report it or could there be any poore Robin excepting M. Abbots himselfe so simple and poore-blinde that in all the writings of those blessed Apostles he could not finde one word that gaue any sound or shew for the Catholike cause You haue heard already that I haue to euery place picked by M. Abbot out of S. Paul in fauour of their religion opposed another out of the same Epistle that speaketh more plainly against them for vs I will here out of the abundance of testimonies which the same S. Paul whom the simple Protestants take to be wholly for them beareth to our doctrine set downe some store euen in defence of those very points which Master Abbot hath made speciall choise off to obiect against vs. R. ABBOT WE note well M. Bishop that no Cooke can fâ—t your diseased appetite but such a one as is brought vp in the Popes kitchin whilest you like better a Numb 11. 5. the fish and leekes and oinions and garlicke of Aegypt then Manna that came from heauen We see it commonly so as hath been before said that corrupt stomackes are best pleased with the most grosse and vnwholsome meates and as the horse-leach sucketh out of the body the most noisome and putrified bloud and the Spider in the garden or otherwhere gathereth that only which may be turned to venime and poison so you out of the body of the Church draw that only which is noisome and poisonfull and nothing pleaseth your humour but what serueth for the corrupting both of your selfe and other men This is the cause why my premises
it to be great disaduantage to him and on the contrary to aduantage himselfe by St. Austins authority he sticketh not most wilfully and absurdly to belie him calling him in the meane time the Eagle-eyed Doctor after the manner of the i Mat. 23. 30. Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites who garnished the Sepulchres of the Prophets but their doctrine they could not abide First he setteth downe St. Austins ground in the Apostles wordes k 1. Cor. 13. 9. We know in part and we prophesie in part but when that which is perfect is come then that which is vnperfect shall be done away And againe l Vers 12. Wee see now by a glasse in a darke sort but then face to face Hereof he saith that St. Austin doth deduce that the knowledge of the heauenly Cittizens is without comparison farre more perfect and cleare then euer any mortall mans was of things absent and to come Yea he alleageth these as the very words of Austin If then the Prophets being mortall men had particular vnderstanding of things farre distant from them and done in other Countries much more doe those immortall soules replenished with the glorious light of heauen perfectly know that which is done on earth though neuer so farre from them For this hee quoteth August de ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. 29. Now would not a man maruell that M. Bishop should dare to cite such a sentence as out of Austin when Austin hath no such And yet he doth so most folsly and vnhonestly St. Austin saying nothing in that place of the immortall soules now in heauen but only of the body and soule conioyned after the resurrection The very thing that he propoundeth to speake of in the beginning of the Chapter is this l August de Ciu. Dei l. 12. c. 29. Nunc iam quid actari sint in corporibus immortalibus atque spiritualibus fancti non adhuc eâ—rum carne carnaliter sed spiritualitèr iam viuente quantum Dominus dignatur adiuuare videamus What the Saints shall doe in their immortall and spirituall bodies the flesh now liuing no longer carnally but spiritually To set forth the sight and knowledge of things which the Saints shall then haue he taketh a coniecture from the example of Elizeus m Ibid. Si Propheta Helizeus pucrum â—uum Gâ—eziabsens câ—rpore vidâ—t accipientem munera quae dedit et Naaman Syrus c. quantò magis in illo corpore spirituali videbunt sancti omnia non solum sioculos claudaÌ„t verumâ—tiam vnde sunt corpore absentes Tunc enim erit perfectum illud de quo loquens Apostolus Ex parte inquit scimus c. Itane cum venerit quod perfectum est nec iam corpus corruptibile aggrauabit animam sed incorruptibile nihil impediet illi sancti ad ea quae videnda sunt â—culis corporeis quibus Helisaeus absensad seruum suum videndum non indiguit indigebunt who being absent yet saw his seruant Gehezi taking gifts of Naaman the Syrian How much more saith he shall the Saints in that spirituall body see all things not only though they shut their eies but also where in body they are absent fir then shall be the perfection saith he whereof the Apostle speaketh citing the wordes which are before set downe and then inferring againe When that is come which is perfect and the corruptible body shall no longer clogge the soule but being incorruptible shall nothing hinder it shall the Saints neede bodily eyes for the seeing of things which Elizeus needed not for the seeing of his seruant I will not stand here to dispute of the strength of this collection nor of St. Austins application of those words of the Apostle but wee see that here is no such matter as M. Bishop pretendeth but by his collecting head hee bath meerely coined a sentence of his owne St. Austin in the one place denyeth that the Saints now are acquainted with our matters and in the other place saith nothing to the contrary but speaketh only vncertainly of the state that shall be after the resurrection from the dead and is not M. Bishop in the meane time a trusty man thus to bolster a false matter with a forged proofe I conclude with a briefe answere to his ground that our crauing of ech others prayers liuing is a request of mutuall loue but Popish prayers to Saints are prayers of adoration and religion performed to them In the one we pray only as fellow members in compassion in the other the Saints are made to pray as Patrones by mediation The one therefore hath no fellowship or agreement with the other and very deceiptfully doth M. Bishop deale to bring the pretence of the one for the colouring of the other W. BISHOP §. 6. NOw to the Masse The same profound diuine Saint Aug. Epist 59. ad Paulinum Ambros Chrysost in hunc locum Augustine with other holy Fathers who were not wont so lightly to skimme ouer the Scriptures as our late new Masters doe but seriously searched them and most deeply pierced into them did also finde all the parts of the Masse touched by the Apostle S. Paul in these wordes I desire that obsecrations prayers postulations 2. Tim. 2. vers 1. thanks-giuings be made for all men c. declaring how by these foure wordes of the Apostles are expressed the foure different sorts of prayers vsed in the celebration of the holy Mysteries By Obsecrations those prayers that the Priest saith before consecration By Prayers such as be said at and after the consecration vnto the end of the Pater noster By postulations those that are said at the Communion vnto the blessing of the people Finally By Thanks-giuing such as are said after by both Priest and People to giue God thanks for so great a gift receiued He that knoweth what the Masse is may by these wordes of the Apostle see all the parts of it very liuely paintedout in this discourse of S. Augustine who though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament by the name of Masse yet doth he giue it a name equiualent Sacri Altaris oblatio the oblation or sacrifice â—pistola 59. of the holy Altar in the solution of the fift question at the exposition of these wordes Orationes As for the principall part of the Masse which is the Reall presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament S. Paul deliuereth it in as expresse termes as may be euen as he had receiued it from our Lord This is my body which shall be deliuered 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. for you c. and addeth that he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord. And in the Chapter before maketh this demaund The Chalice or cup of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of
the body of our Lord Moreouer he speaketh of the Church of Rome being then but in her cradle most honourably saying Your faith is Rom. 1. vers 8. renowmed in the whole world and after Your obedience Rom. 16. ver 19. is published into euery place But no maruaile to the wise though he did not then make mention of her Supremacie for that did not belong to the Church or people of Rome but to S. Peter who when S. Paul wrote that Epistle was scarse well setled there neither did that appertaine to the matter he treated of R. ABBOT NOw to the Masse sâ—ith M. Bishop but there is no wise man that readeth what he hath here written but would thinke that hee had done much more wisely to keepe him from the Masse I cannot tell whether more to pitty his folly or to detest his wilfulnesse See with what a graue preface he entreth to a most ridiculous and childish proofe The same profound diuine St. Austin with other holy Fathers who were not wont so lightly to skimme ouer the Scriptures as our late new Masters doe but seriously searched them and most deeply pierced into them did also finde all the parts of the Masse touched by the Apostle St. Paul in these wordes I desire that obsecrations prayers postulations thanks-giuings be made for all men This phrase of skimming ouer the Scriptures he learned of his Masters of Rhemes who vpon those words of St. Paul alleaging by that place of Austin and some other Fathers that all those kinds of prayers were publikely vsed in the Lyturgie of the Church conclude thus a Rhem. Testam Annot. 1. Tim. 2. 1. So exactly doth the practise of the Church agree with the precepts of the Apostle and the Scriptures and so profoundly doe the holy Fathers seeke out the proper sense of the Scriptures which our Protestants doe so prophanely popularly and lightly skimme ouer that they can neither see nor endure the truth So then it seemeth we must diue very deepe to finde the Masse in the Scriptures but wee are in doubt that they which goe about to diue so deepe will certainly bee drowned and neuer finde that that they seeke for And tell vs in good sooth M. Bishop did St. Austin in your opinion finde in those wordes all the parts of your Masse Nay did he finde that at all to which the name of the Masse is by you properly referred You hold the Masse to be a proper reall sacrifice of the very naturall body and bloud of Christ offered to God for propitiation of the sinnes both of quicke and dead and doth St. Austin speake any thing to that effect or could he finde all the parts of the Masse without finding this Yea that the impudency of him and his Rhemish Masters may the better appeare doth St. Austin say any thing there but what properly belongeth to our Communion and not to their Masse Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that Paulinus wrote to Austin to be instructed by him of the difference of those sorts of prayers which St. Paul commendeth to Timothy in the wordes aforesaid St. Austin answereth him that b Aug. Epist 59. Illa planè difficillimè discernuntur c. Aliqua singulorum istorum proprietas inquirenda est sed ad â—a liquidò peruenire difficile est Multa quippe hinc dici possunt quae improbandâ— non sint sed eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere quod omnis vel penè omnis frequentat Ecclesia vt precationes accipiamus dictas quas facimus in celebratione Sacramentorum antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici orationes cum benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum coÌ„minuitur quam totam petitionem ferè omnis Ecclesia Dominica oratione coÌ„cludit Interpellationes siue postulationes fiunt cum populus benedicitur Tunc enim antistites velut aduocati susceptos suos per manus impositionem miserecordissimae offerunt potestati Quibus peractis participato tanto Sacramento gratiarum actio câ—ncta concludit they are very hardly discerned that there is some propriety of euery of them to be enquired of but very hard it is certainly to attaine vnto it For many things saith he may be said hereof which are not to be disliked but I make choise to vnderstand in these wordes that which the whole Church or almost the whole accustometh to take those to be called precations obsecrations as M. Bishop termeth them out of their vulgar Latin which we make in the celebration of the Sacraments before that which is vpon the Lords table beginne to be blessed Prayers those which are vsed when the same is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed all which petition almost the whole church concludeth with the Lords prayer Intercessions or postulations which are made when the people is blessed for then the Priests as aduocates doe offer to the most mercifull power them whom they haue receiued by imposition of hands All which being done and after the participation of so great a Sacrament thanks-giuing concludeth all Now what is there in all this that doth concerne the Masse M. Bishop telleth vs that St. Austin findeth all the parts of the Masse here touched by the Apostle and see saith he all the parts of it very liuely painted out but can any man but thinke that he was scant sober when he looked vpon the place and therefore his eyes being troubled thought hee saw that which hee saw not Here is the celebration of a Sacrament the setting of bread and wine vpon the table of the Lord the blessing and sanctifying thereof the breaking of it to be distributed to the people the peoples participating of the Sacrament and in the meane while prayers supplications intercessions giuing of thanks the very true description of our Communion but who seeth any thing here appertaining to the Masse What M. Bishop is there no end of your trifling will yee still goe on to play the wiseman in this sort But to helpe the matter he telleth vs that though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament by the name of Masse yet he doth giue it a name equiualent Sacri Altaris oblatio the oblation or sacrifice of the holy Altar It is true indeede that St. Austin nameth the oblation of the holy Altar but nothing at all to M. Bishops vse For willing to giue a reason why the prayers vsed in the very act of the administration of the Sacrament are termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he taketh the same from the composition of the word and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed to signifie a vow therefore he saith that c Ibid. Ea propriè intelligenda est oratio quam facimus ad votum c. Vouentur autem omnia quae offeruntur Deo maximè sancti Altaris oblatio quo Sacramento praedicatur aliud nostrum votum maximum quo nos vouimus in Christo esse mansuros id est
is therein approued by the Councell of Ephesus n Cyril Epist 10. ad Nestor Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipid homini siue sacerdotij nomen siue rem ipsam ascribimus We ascribe not the name of Priesthood or the thing it selfe to any other but to Christ only o August coÌ„t Faust l. 22. c. 17 Vnus verus Sacerdos Mediator Dei hominum c. The only true Priest as St. Austin calleth him p Ibid. l. 20. c. 18. Verum sacrificium c. quo eius Altare solus Christus impleuit Who only saith he hath filled Gods Altar with true sacrifice Whilest he limiteth the sacrifice of Christ to his q Heb. 7. 27. 10. 10. once offering of himselfe r Heb. 9. 12. by the shedding of his bloud and denyeth plainly his Å¿ Heb. 7. 27. 9. 1. 25. often offering he disclaimeth the Popish sacrifice which is often offered not from yeare to yeare only but from day to day after the manner of the Leuiticall sacrifice which is therefore argued not to haue taken away sinnes t Heb. 10. 1. 2. because it was often offered For u Vers 18. where there is remission of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne Where there is therefore still offering for sinne there is a deniall of the purchase of remission of sinnes But in the x Mat. 26. 28. shedding of the bloud of Christ who doubteth but that there is remission of sinnes Who then can doubt but that after the shedding of the bloud of Christ there is no more offering or sacrifice for sinne Therefore St. Austin saith y Aug. cont aduersar leg proph lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari solo vero sacrificio Christi pro nobis sanguis effususest For the soueraigne and only true sacrifice the bloud of Christ was shed for vs. If the shedding of the bloud of Christ be the only true sacrifice then is there no true sacrifice in the Popish Masse and therefore St. Austin neuer vnderstood the Apostles words of any Popish sacrifice Well though the Apostle say nothing for the sacrifice yet he saith somewhat M. Bishop telleth vs for the principall part of the Masse which is the Reall presence But what is the Reall presence now the principall part of the Masse They will haue vs by the Masse to vnderstand a sacrifice and the Reall presence may stand without any sacrifice and so by this meanes wee shall haue a Masse without a Masse But what saith the Apostle for the Reall presence Forsooth he deliuereth it in as expresse termes as may be euen as he had receiued it from our Lord This is my body which shall be deliuered for you c. and addeth that he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord. Wee see the wordes we reade them daylie but we cannot see in them the Reall presence Christ saith there This is my body but he doth not say This is my body really present He telleth vs that the vnworthy receiuer incurreth iudgement for not discerning the Lords body but he doth not tell vs that this is for not discerning his body really present M. Bishop should here haue giuen vs a sound reason that these wordes doe necessarily enforce a reall presence and cannot be verified but by the granting thereof For if there may be another interpretation of these wordes standing well with Scriptures approued by Fathers confonant and agreeable to the nature of all Sacraments then how childishly how vainly doth he deale only to set downe the place and to say it is a proofe for the reall presence Nay see how by alleaging places in this sort he circumuenteth himselfe and destroyeth by one place that which he seeketh to fortifie by another For whereas Transubstantiation is the foundation and ground of Reall presence the latter place which he citeth is the bane of Transubstantiation and giueth vs a conuenient and true exposition of the former wordes without any necessity of Reall presence For how can it stand which the Apostle saith z 1. Cor. 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the coÌ„munion of the body of Christ if the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation be true that there is no bread to breake It is true which St. Paul saith that it is bread which we breake therefore it is false which the Papists say that the bread by consecration is substantially turned into the body of Christ and ceaseth thenceforth to be bread And this the Apostle inculcateth againe and againe in the former place a 1. Cor. 11. 26. 27. 28. As oft as yee shall eate of this bread c. Whosoeuer shall eate of this bread c. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread c. and yet notwithstanding all this it must be denyed to be bread But of this bread he telleth vs that it is the communion or participation of the body of Christ and thereby giueth vs a true and certaine exposition of the wordes of Christ This is my body that is this bread is the communion or participation of my body signifying that though in naturall substance and being it be but bread yet by sacramentall vnderstanding and effect it is to the due and faithfull receiuer the communion of the body of Christ. For by Gods institution and ordinance b Cypr. serm de Resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur the visible element as Cyprian saith is accounted both in name and power the body of Christ and therefore in the due receiuing of the Sacrament is the participating of Christs body as on the other side the not discerning of the Sacrament is the not discerning of the body of Christ which to vs the Sacrament is though in it selfe it be not so Now the body of Christ is here vnderstood as giuen for vs and his bloud as shedde for vs and therefore the communion of the body and bloud of Christ is the participation of his Passion Death and Resurrection so that the Sacrament is to vs as Optatus saith c Optat. cont Parmen lib. 6. Pignus salutis aeternae tutela sidei spes resurrectionis the pledge of eternall life the protection of our faith the hope of our resurrection There was cause therefore why our Sauiour Christ should say of the Sacrament This is my body because to vs it is in effect the body of Christ though really it be not so but d Tertuâ—l coÌ„t Marc. lib. 4 Hoc est corpus mâ—um id est figura corporis mei the figure of his body as Tertullian expoundeth e August coÌ„t Adima â—t c. 12. Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui the signe of his body as St. Austin speaketh f Hieron in Mat 16. Vt veritatem corporis sangâ—â—is sui