doe as well belong to the institution as the other Secondly they say that the words of institution doe not serue any thing at all for the instruction of the people to shew them the right vse of the Sacrament but onely for benediction and consecration of the elements Bellarm. cap. 19. Thirdly they doe hold that only by the pronouncing of those words the elements are consecrated whereas by the whole action and cerebration of the Sacrament the giuing receiuing inuocation thankesgiuing according to Christs institution the consecration is performed vpon the elements Fulk 1. Corinth 10. sect 4. Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed do helpe as well to admonish stirre vp the people to a thankful remēbrance of the death of Christ as to consecrate blesse the elemēts it is manifest whereas Christ saith as the words are vsually rehearsed Doe this in remembrance of me and S. Paul saith That by receiuing the sacrament we doe shew forth the Lords death 1. Corinth 11.26 Ergo the people are by the words pronounced instructed and admonished and taught the right vse of the sacrament Argum. 2. that the words of institution doe helpe toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements we deny not but not by them alone but praier also and thankesgiuing and the whole action beside of receiuing To the consecration or sanctifiyng of any creature two things are required the word of God and praier 1. Timoth. 4.5 Neither the word sanctifieth without praier nor praier without the word Ergo to the sanctifiyng cōsecrating of the sacrament the bare rehearsall of the institution sufficeth not without inuocation and praier Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum et fiet Sacramentum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it is become a Sacrament And in an other place he sheweth what word he meaneth Faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus The word effecteth this not because it is spoken or vttered but because it is beleeued this is the word of faith saith the Apostle which we preach thus farre Augustine tract in Johan 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange toung after the manner of enchaunters that by any secret force giuen vnto them hath power to consecrate but the vnderstanding hearing and beleeuing the institution of Christ with calling vpon the name of God and thankesgiuing before him AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART WHETHER THE forme of wordes in the institution of the Sacraments may not be by some addition or other alteration changed The Papists THe words of institution may be changed two manner of wayes either substantially error 89 when the sence is also altered with the words or accidētally whē the elements or syllables are onely changed but the sence remaineth the same If there be a change in the substance of the words the sacrament is imperfect if the alteration be of the forme onely of words and not of the sence the sacramēt is not destroyed but he sinneth that doth so alter them Wherefore it is not lawfull any way at all to alter or change the forme of words Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1. Argum. It is not lawfull to adde or take to or from the words of scripture much lesse to change the words appointed to be vsed in the Sacrament Bellarm ibid. Ans. To adde or detract to or from the word of God with a purpose and intent to wrest it to a contrary meaning and destroy the true sence thereof cannot be done without great impiety and such is the manner of all heretikes But to alleadge Scripture in keeping still the full sence though we misse of the wordes is not to be counted so heinous a sinne we see the holy Apostles in citing textes of Scripture doe not alwaies binde themselues to the very wordes as Act. 7.43 Heb. 10.5 The Apostle saith A body thou hast giuen me In the Psalme we read Mine eares hast thou opened diuerse wordes yet the same sense Augustine saith very well they that vnderstand the Scripture though they keepe not alwaies the wordes are better then they that read and vnderstand not Sed vtrisque ille melior qui et cum volet ea◠dicit et sicut oportet intelligit But he is better then both that both remembreth the wordes and keepeth the sense too yet he also deserueth praise that beareth the sense in minde though he cannot the words The Protestants NO substantiall change we confesse is to be admitted in the forme of Institution which may alter the sense neither is any particular man by himselfe to make any accidentall change and bring in a new forme of wordes but the publike and vniforme order of the church must be kept yea and the church likewise is bound both to reteyne the true sense and as neere as may be the very words but where occasion serueth to make some small accidentall change of the words the sence being nothing diminished it is not condemned as an vnlawfull and sinfull act Argum. 1. The Euangelists report not all the same forme of words which should be vttered by our Sauiour neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them in the precise and strict forme of institution as by comparing of them together it may be seene Mat. 26. ver 27. Take eat this is my body S. Luke cap. 22. This is my body which is giuen for you do this in remembrance of me ver 19. S. Paul Take eat this my body which is broken for you doe this in remēbrāce of me 1. Cor. 11.24 ver 28. This is my blood of the new testament that is shedde for many for the remission of sinnes This cup is the new testamēt in my blood which is shed for you This cup is the newe testament in my bloud this do as oft as you drink it in remēbrance of me If it had beene a sinne to haue missed in some termes and sillables no doubt the spirite of God would not haue suffered these holy writers to haue made the least scape Is it to be thought a sinne in the Church which in stead of Take ye eate ye in the plurall number hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministred particularly in the singular number to euery of the cōmunicants saying Take thou eat thou drinke thou Wherfore all accidentall change of words carieth not with it a guilt of sinne Augustine indeede saith Certa sunt verba euangelica c. The words of the gospell are certaine whereby Baptisme is consecrated But yet he saith else where In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manēs In the word spoken the sound which passeth is one thing the vertue or sense of the words which abideth is an other It is then the sence of the words not the sound or sillables that is certaine and permanent THE THIRD PART OF THE INSTRVMENTALL cause of the Sacraments that is the lawfull
chapter of Iohn cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it First Christ speaketh not onely of the sacramentall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth whether in the sacrament or without which is wrought in vs by the holy Ghost 1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament then it will follow that no man can be saued vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament for Christ saith vers 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood you cannot haue life in you This I am sure they will hardly grant that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie as they make Baptisme to saluation 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes for in euery place he ioyneth both these together the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Augustine also thus writeth vpon these wordes Hoc est manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentemin se habere This it is to eate that flesh and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abiding in vs but this may be done without the sacrament Ergo it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament Secondly though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament and not otherwise 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst To eate then and to drinke Christ is to beleeue in him 2 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh then the Capernaites did But they imagined that Christ would giue his very flesh and blood to bee eaten And therefore they went away offended and sayd This is an hard saying vers 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit sayth vnto them that his words were spirite and life that is spiritually to be vnderstoode verse 63. So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ as if he had sayd Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum You must vnderstand spiritually that which I haue sayd You shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which shall be shed for you Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos I haue commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you The Papists ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament sayd vnto his Apostles after hee had giuen thanks and blessed Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie that is that which is contayned in this bread or vnder the formes of this bread is my very body Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly not to bee a trope or figure 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements and directorie rules in obscure termes or figuratiue speeches but plainely and euidently therefore it is not like that Christ being now to prescribe vnto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament would speake obscurely 2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies yet there was no cause why he should so doe none being present but his Apostles Bellarmin ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well that you will now though I thinke vnawares grant vnto vs that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure as you would beare vs in hand they are for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed as you seeme to confesse what reason haue you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture 2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church for sayth not Saint Paul speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes Petra erat Christus the rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 that is signified Christ Likewise in the 17. vers We that are many are one bread that is our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented in that we are partakers of one bread 3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely being alone with his Apostles thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vnto his wordes as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies Mark 8.15 Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles This is my bodie was neither so darke nor obscure that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding Nay many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes are vttered with greater grace and carrie a fuller sense When Christ sayd I am the doore Iohn 10.9 I am the vine Iohn 15.1 he spake by figure as he doth here for neither was he a vine or a doore as the bread was not his bodie Yet which of the Apostles was there that vnderstoode him not when he called himselfe a vine and a doore Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here Contra. Now on the other side we will make it playne that these words of Christ are spoken tropically 1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood Luk. 22.23 we must needes admitte a double trope or figure for first the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe Secondly the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament but a signe of the new Testament If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure why not also in the other when he sayth This is my bodie that is a liuely signe and seale thereof 2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture to say this is that is signifieth as Genes 17.10 Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe where it was a signe onely of it And Exod. 12.11 the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer which it betokened onely In the same sense Christ sayth This is my bodie that is exhibiteth and representeth vnto you my bodie Augustine so expoundeth these wordes Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corpus sui Christ doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie The Protestants THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament wee doe willingly graunt neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but Christ is verily by them exhibited vnto vs and spiritually by fayth we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie blood not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend by faith and in spirit vnto him yea we confesse
olde blinde latine translation then the authenticall Greeke text the words in the originall are Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ not euery spirite that dissolueth And this may appeare to bee the true reading by the opposition in the former verse Euery spirite that confesseth Iesus is of GOD therefore this is the best reading Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus as being set opposite and contrarie to the other verse Againe the Rhemists vnderstand this place after their owne reading of the dissoluing of the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ as Bellarm supposeth 3 This their deuice of concomitance ouerthwarteth the institution of Christ For he sayth the bread is his body the wine his blood but by their rule the bread is his blood and the wine his bodie And be it graunted that the blood of Christ is in the bread yet how can any man be sayd to drink it in bread We vse to eate bread not to drink bread his blood therefore cannot be there because it cannot be drunke there Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30 Christ brake bread to his disciples Act. 2.42 the Apostles brake bread Ergo to communicate in one kinde is grounded vpon the example of Christ and his Apostles Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist 24. Rhemist Iohn 6.11 And Christ sayth Whosoeuer shall eate this bread shall liue for euer Iohn 6.58 Ergo it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde Answer 1. To the two first places we say that it is not necessary to vnderstand the breaking of bread in the sacrament but the vsuall bread rather which was accustomed in their daylie repasts and feasts after thankesgiuing to be broken Or if we take it for the sacrament the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mysterie as it is an vsuall phrase of speech in scripture for otherwise wee will conclude as well that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kinde which they holde for a great absurditie as that the other receiued but in one kinde But their opinion is that although the people must communicate in one kinde onely yet the Priest must consecrate both Rhemist annotat Iohn 6. sect 11. 2 To the second place wee answere First it is not vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating of Christ but of the spirituall manducation of him which may be done without a sacrament For whosoeuer eateth this bread shall liue for euer but whosoeuer eateth the sacrament shall not liue for euer Secondly seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often ioyned in this chapter as vers 53.55.56 they might well know that drinking is here to be vnderstoode though it be not expressed Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to bee had as in the cold Northerly countreies and therefore they cannot communicate according to the institution whereupon that there might be an vniformitie in all Churches it is most meete that where wine may bee had they should notwithstanding be content to receiue it in one kinde Bellarmin cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconuenience in graunting the cuppe to the people as in spilling and sheading the wine which after consecration is the blood of Christ Rhemist annot Iohn 6. sect 11. Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to bee had so wee finde that in certaine places and regions of the world there is no bread such as Christ vsed made of wheate or the like grayne as in some places amongst the West Indians they haue a certaine kinde of bread made of rootes called Cazabi as Benzo witnesseth Wherefore by this reason of vniformitie wee should not communicate at all either in bread or wine seeing that as some countreyes are destitute of wine so other are of bread but all this not withstanding the sacrament may be duely administred in all places in both kindes and where they haue neither bread nor wine neither can possibly prouide them they may safely vse such other elements as doe stand them in the like stead as in the place of bread that which commeth nearest to the vse thereof and for wine some other precious liquor that is to be had as in Russia in stead of wine they vse a certaine drink like vnto that which we call Metheglen 2 As for the other reasons of the inconueniences in spilling the wine shaking the cuppe the hanging of it on mens beards other such friuolous allegations as they were no let or hinderance why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kindes and the Church accordingly obserued it as we reade the Corinthians did communicate in both kindes so ought they to bee no reason why Christians should not receiue in both kindes nowe The Protestants WE holde it to be an Antichristian practise of the Church of Rome to take away from the people the cuppe in the sacrament for although they sometime minister the cuppe to the people yet they vse no consecration ouer it neither giue it as any parte of the sacrament Fulk annotat 1. Corinth 4.10 sect 4. They doe therefore offer great wrong to the people of God in depriuing them of the one halfe of the communion Argum. 1. Iohn 6.53 Christ sayth Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood you haue no life in you Here wee see both eating and drinking are ioyned together Ergo Christians ought to doe both This place maketh strongly against our aduersaries who doe expound it of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ. Argum. 2. Christ instituted the sacrament in both kinds giuing charge and commaundement to all Christians in the same manner to celebrate it for he sayth Drinke ye all of this If our aduersaries answere as they doe that this was spoken to the Apostles by the like reason they may say also that when Christ sayd Take eate he spake vnto his Apostles and so the people shoulde neither receiue bread and wine but the Ministers onely Agayne Saynt Paul the best expounder of our Sauiour Christ declareth the right vse of the Lords Supper in both kindes for all Christians for hee writeth to the whole congregation and Church of the Corinthians not to the Pastors and teachers onely and to euery Christian he sayth Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe vers 28. Argum. 3. The Priest that saith Masse you allow to consecrate and receiue in both kindes because hee must expresse liuely the passion of Christ and the separation of his blood from his bodie in the same Rhemist annotat Iohn 6.58 By the same reason all the communicants ought to receiue in both kindes because they doe all shewe foorth the death of Christ and sheading of his blood in the sacrament 1. Corinthian 11.26 And seeing the cuppe is a signe of the blood of Christ shedde for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 for as much as the thing signified that is
whose merites and praiers namely of the Saints grant we may be defended Thus the merites and praiers of Christ are excluded 4. We beseech thee saith the Priest to receiue this oblation which we beseech thee in all things to make blessed Heere the Priest is made a mediator betweene Christ and his Father desiring God to sanctifie the body blood of his sonne 5. Who the next day afore he suffered But the Scripture saith The same night For this is my body Heere they haue put in enim of their owne and left out quod pro vobis datur Such is their boldenes that they are not ashamed to change the words of our Sauiour Christ. 6. He saith further The holy bread of eternall life which vouchsafe thou with a pleasant countenaunce to beholde The bread of eternall life is Christ himselfe if this be he how dare ye presume to offer him vp to his Father 7. As thou didst vouchsafe to accept the righteous giftes of Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham Heere the sacrifice of Christ is compared to the sacrifice of beastes and the Priest seemeth to attribute as much efficacie to the one as to the other 8. And the holy sacrifice which thy high Priest Melchisedech did offer vnto thee This is a plaine vntruth and a flat lie as we haue shewed alredy that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine 9. Command thou these to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angell vnto the high altar in heauen What an absurd thing is this that he should desire that to be carried into heauen which he eateth and deuoureth And if this be the body of Christ what need the help of an Angell to carry it vp to heauen is not Christ able to lift vp his own body or what need that to be conueied to heauen which was neuer from thence 10. As many of vs as shall receiue thy Sonnes body and blood And yet for the most part none receiue but the Priest and when the people doe communicate the wine they haue not how then can he say As many 11. Remember O Lord the soules of thy seruants which rest in the sleepe of peace and graunt them a place of refreshing and rest Heere is an other error contrary to the Scriptures in praying for the dead and the praier also is contrary to it selfe for first he saith they rest in peace and yet afterward praieth for their refreshing 12. Vouchsafe to giue some portion with thy Saints And why doth he not rather pray to be admitted to the fellowship of Christ 13. Deliuer vs by the blessed intercession of the Virgine What then is become of Christs mediation and intercession 14. Let this mingling together of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be vnto me saluation of minde and body Then is not Christs blood shed vpon the Crosse the full sufficient and perfect saluation of mankinde if there be an other saluation beside 15. Grant me so worthily to take this holy body and blood that I may merite to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes O sinfull man how canst thou merite that which is Christs onely gift 16. Let the priest bow himselfe to the host saying I worship thee I glorifie thee I praise thee What monstrous Idolatry is this thus to worship a piece of bread 17. Let this communion purge vs from sinne If they meane the principall purging of our sinne so doth Christ onely purge vs Heb. 1.3 If they vnderstand the instrumental meanes of our purgation so are we purged and iustified onely by faith Rom. 3.28 18. Respect not my sinnes but the faith of thy Church By this reason one may be profited by an others faith which is contrary to the Scriptures the Iust shal liue by faith his owne and not an others 19. Let vs worship the signe of the Crosse What I pray you wil not these Idolaters worship 20. Let this sacrifice which J haue offered auaile to obtaine remission of sinnes If the Masse be auaileable for this end wherefore then died Christ Thus we see with how many and what great and horrible blasphemies this popish nay rather diuelish canon of the Masse is stuffed indeede it is an epitome and abridgement of Papistrie the marrow sinewes and bones of their idolatrous profession yea the very darling of the popish Church it is the very proper badge and marke of a papist He that hateth the Masse hateth the whore of Babylon he that loueth the Masse cannot loue the truth If then I should be demaunded at once which of all popish blasphemies and heresies I thinke most abominable contrary to the faith and to be abhorred of all good christians though I know that there are many of this kinde yet I would redily answere the Masse the inuention whereof I am wel assured cannot be ascribed but to the deuil himselfe the author of all lies and blasphemies I conclude therefore with that saying of Gregorie as he said concerning the word Antichristus so may I in as good sense of this word Missa as it is now vnderstoode of Papists Si spectes quantitatem vocis duae sunt syllabae si pondus iniquitatis est vniuersa pernicies If you marke the quantitie of the word it standeth but of two syllables but if we respect the waight of iniquitie it containeth all impietie and vngodlines Soli Deo immortali Patri Filio cum Spiritu sancto sit honor et imperium sempiternum THE THIRD BOOKE OR CENTVRIE CONTAINING A THIRD HVNDRED OF POPISH ERRORS AND HERESIES ABOVT the controuersies of the fiue Popish Sacraments and of the benefites of our redemption and concerning the person of Christ CONSISTING OF SEVEN SEVERAL CONTROVERSIES THE 14 15.16 17 18 19 20. in number Jmprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man 1592. To the right honorable Sir Robert Cicil Knight one of her Maiesties most honorable priuie Councell BOth that general loue right honorable which the Church of God doth beare to your worthie and honorable Father for his sincere and sound affection to religion and the dutifull reuerence which our vniuersitie of Cambridge and generally the whole company of Students doth owe vnto him as their singular good Patrone haue moued and caused me at this time to cōmend this last part of this worke to your Honor his sonne of whose loue also vnto the Gospell following your Fathers steppes we are all perswaded and conceiue no lesse hope of your honourable fauour to learning I haue as your Honor seeth vndertaken an hard peece of worke and thrust my shoulders vnder an heauy burthen for in this worke I haue taken vpon me to discouer and lay open all popish Heresies and Errors to portraite and decipher the whole body of papistrie to spread abroad the whore of Babylons skirtes that her filthines may appeare to vncouer her whorish face which masked vnder the visour of the Church and religion for we may say to them as Leo Bishop of Rome did sometime to certaine Heretikes Ecclesiae
by the power of Christ but the blind heart is lightened and illuminate through the Gospell of Christ Such miracles the Lord be blessed we can shewe sinners are conuerted afflicted consciences are comforted the ignorant are instructed many are called by the preaching of the Gospell Thirdly if this will not content them but they still crye with open mouth and say where are your miracles Behold to stop their wide and clamorous mouth we will shewe them also such miracles as they looke for like to which they haue none Was not that a miracle which Oecolampadius reporteth to haue been done at the Martyrdome of Master Hugh Spengler who being cast into the water and so drowned presently all the water was coloured with bloud he hauing receiued no wound nor hurt in his bodie before at the which all the people were greatly amazed But what thinke you of that straunge signe which George Scherrer shewed at his death who being beheaded the bodie lay a pretie space vpon the bellie till one might haue eaten an egge and then turned it selfe vpon the backe crossed the right hand ouer the left and the right legge ouer the left the Magistrates seeing it hauing condemned his bodie to be burned before being moued at the sight hereof caused it to be buried Fox ex Math. Illyrico It is worth the remembring that is reported in the French stories of Petrus Burgerius a blessed Martyr who was cast into a filthie dungeon where a theefe had lien the space of eight moneths being almost eaten vp with lice and in such miserie that he cursed his parents that bare him This man through the teaching and the prayers of the Martyr felt such comfort in the Gospell that he became very patient in his affliction and after his conuersion this straunge thing was wrought vpon him that whereas before he was so full of lice that he might haue plucked out twelue at once betweene two of his fingers the next day he had not one Now because the Iesuite hath such a spite at Luther he is a great eye sore to him we will in a word or two declare what straunge things were wrought by Luther It is credible reported of him that a certaine young man had bound himselfe by obligation to the diuell sealed with his bloud to giue him his soule so he might haue his wish and desire satisfied with money In short time hee grewe to great wealth the matter being disclosed with much adoe to Luther he calleth the congregation together and ioyneth in prayer for this yong man and as they prayed the obligation was cast in at the windowe A notable and straunge miracle which is crediblie reported of Luther He was a man feruent in prayer one might haue seen the teares falling from his eyes as he prayed And as he was earnest in prayer so his prayers wanted not effect for as he himselfe confessed he had obtayned of God that so long as he liued the Pope should not preuayle in his countrey And is not this also a thing to be wondred at that for all the Pope and Emperour ioyned together bent their forces against this silly poore man yet the Lord defended him from the Lyons teeth and graunted him to end his dayes in peace Thus it is apparant and manifest that the Lorde sheweth his miraculous power manie times in his Saints to astonish the wicked The great miracles which haue been declared in their holy martyrdomes would fil a large volume And by the grace of God hereafter we may haue occasion in an other treatise of purpose more at large to publish them But these arguments wee doe not chiefly stand vpon Yet thus much was not amisse by the way to be put in to requite our aduersaries withall who doe so greatly magnifie and extoll their Antichristian Church for their lying and fayned miracles The sixte Note of the gift of Prophecying error 23 THis also our aduersaries holde to be a perpetuall marke whereby to knowe the Church for they say that the true Church of GOD wanteth not those which are endewed with the spirit of prophecie And so they beare vs in hand that in euery age there hath flourished some Prophet in their Church the first that the Church shall alwayes haue Prophets they would prooue out of Ioel 2. I will power of my spirit vpon all flesh The second that they haue had such prophets they do infer vppon a few forged examples of Saint Barnard and S. Frauncis a popish Saint and the founder of the superstitious order of the Franciscanes To the first we aunswere 1. The prophecie of Ioel was accomplished in the Apostles time Act. 2. as S. Peter expoundeth it and therefore we need not looke further for the fulfilling of it 2. The Church of the Iewes wanted Prophets for the space of 4. hundred years and more before the comming of Christ for we read of no Prophet after Malachy and the Church complayneth of this want Psalm 74. verse 9. that they had Prophets no more wherefore the Church of God after the comming of Christ may better spare this extraordinary function of prophecying seeing both Christ is already come who was the very subiect and matter of all the auncient prophecies And wee haue also most euident prophecies of the Apostles Rom. 11. cōcerning the calling of the Iewes 2. Thes. 2. of Antichrist in the Apocalipse of the general estate conditiō of the Church to the end of the world Som of which are already accomplished som to be fulfilled in their seasō In these prophecies we must rest cōtent our selues not looking for new reuelations 3. There haue been Prophets amongst the heathen out of the Church of God they also can bring foorth diuers olde prophecies so that if the issue lay in this poynt they might as well contend to be the Church of God Astiages dreamed that hee sawe a Vine growing out of his daughter that couered all Asia which came to passe in Cyrus Augustine reporteth a prophecie of Hermes Trismegistus how that all the Images and Idols of the heathen should be broken downe through all Aegypt The Indians were foretolde of the Spaniards comming many a yeare before their arriuall in those places Their Zemes that is their diuels which they worshipped as Gods told them that there should come a people with long beards fierce and cruell that at one stroke should strike men off by the middle And all these thinges fell out afterwards to that nation accordingly But they wil answere that these were not true prophecies inspired of God but vncertaine predictions of the diuell What will they say then to Balaam that prophecied of Christ there shall come a starre of Iacob saith he Numb 24.17 and in the same place he sayth he heard the words of God The prophecies also of Sibill are wonderfull which many yeares before the comming of Christ prophecied of his incarnation and of his passion with the circumstances
that tithes should be payd Praecidite deputate aliquid fixum ex annuis fructib vel quotidianis quaestibus defaulke sayth he and appoynt some certaine portion either of your yearely fruites or your ordinary and daylie gaines Decimas vis decimas exime Will you make choyce to pay tithes then let that be the portion And yet this is no great matter for the Pharisies whose righteousnesse you ought to exceede payed their tithes Tu vix millesimam das Thou scarce payest the thousand part Tamen non reprehendo vel hoc fac sic sitio vt ad istas micas gaudeam Yet I finde not fault doe so still for I so thirst after your well-doing that I refuse not your very crummes We see then that then the payment of tithes was voluntarie Augustine refuseth not the ten hundred that is millesimam partem the thousand part which he calleth their crummes THE SECOND PART BY WHAT RIGHT tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel The Papists COncerning tithes or their equiualent due to Christ the priesthood of the error 81 new Testament Rhemist annot Heb. 7.4 this then is their opinion that the priesthood of the Gospell being more excellent then the priesthood of the Law and their sacrifice which they offer vp in the Masse being of greater worthines they may with better right challenge tithes then the priests of the law did for their seruice at the altar So that tithes are due to the Church onely because of the priesthood not for any other duetie appertaining to that office as preaching the word ministring the sacraments or any such Abraham payd tithes they say to Melchisedech which was the priest of the most high God in offering the formes of bread wine wherein Melchisedech did sacrifice Ergo tithes are now due to the priests of the Gospel and new law which are all after the order of Melchisedech Rhemist Hebr. 7. sect 4. 8. Answere First Melchisedechs priesthood consisted not in offering bread and wine to God but brought them foorth to refresh Abraham neither were they formes of bread and wine onely as you imagine but very materiall bread and wine for if Melchisedechs priesthood had consisted therein the Apostle would not haue omitted the chiefe thing wherein Christs priesthood was shewed forth as he doth making no mention at all of it Heb. 7. Secondly againe it is great blasphemie to say that euery popish priest is after the order of Melchisedech nay that the proper act of Christs priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offering of his bodie blood in the Church for by this reason euery impure priest doth more properly offer the body of Christ in the Masse then it was offered by himself vpon the cros thē the which what greater blasphemie can be vttered And yet they are not ashamed to speak it yea the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse say they was after the order of Aaron and not after the order of Melchisdech and so they preferre euery popish priest offering in the Masse before Iesus Christ sacrificing himself vpon the Crosse contrary to the scripture which maketh this difference between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchisedech that the priests of the law were many because they were taken away by death But Christs priesthood is eternall because he dieth not Heb. 7.23 But if there should be many priestes after Melchisedechs order there should heerein bee no difference at all Wherefore seeing Melchisedechs priesthood onely resteth in Christ and is not translated to any other and that there is now no sacrifice left but spirituall of prayse and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 it followeth that by Melchisedechs right no tithes are now due vnto the Church neither in any such regard ought to be challenged The Protestantes TIthes or their equiualent are not due to the Church in respect of any sacrificing priesthood of which sorte there is none in the new testament ordayned to continue but for other pastorall dueties and principally the preaching and dispensing of the word and instructing of the people 1 If there were any such priesthood and tithes in that right did appertaine to the Church it is most like that our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would haue challenged them But there is no one precept in the new testament concerning paying of tithes but onely for a sufficient maintenance for the ministers of the Gospel 1. Cor. 9.14 Gal. 6.6 Fulk Hebr. 7. sect 4. 2 Saint Paul euery where so oft as he sheweth the duetie of Christians in relieuing and mayntayning their pastors maketh onely mention of sowing of spirituall things 1. Cor. 9.11 and of teaching and instructing Gal. 6.6 Ergo tithes are due vnto Pastors and Ministers onely or especially for their feeding and instructing and sowing spirituall seede which is the word of God 3 There is no such sacrificing priesthood now in the Church as wee haue partly shewed before and shall of purpose more fully declare it afterward for euery where in the new testament spirituall sacrifices are commanded and all Christians are made Kings and Priests vnto God Apocal. 1.6 Other priesthood we read of none Wherefore in that respect tithes cannot be due Lastly Augustine sayth Si mendicum non contemnis quanto magis bonem per quem trituratur haec area If thou despisest not a beggar how much more oughtest thou to haue regard of the oxe that treadeth out the corne on the floore That is the Minister that preacheth the Gospel for so Saint Paul expoundeth it 1. Timoth. 5.17 The Elders sayth he that labour in the word and doctrine are worthie double honour and then it followeth vers 8. for the scripture sayth Thou shalt not muzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne Sufficient maintenance therefore to the Ministers is due for their labour and trauaile in the word THE SIXT GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE SVPERSTITIOVS ORDERS AND SECTS OF MONKES AND FRIERS MOnkes in Latine called Monachi deriued of the Greeke word were such as liued solitarilie thereupon had they their name And they were at the beginning of three sortes some were called Eremites that liued in woods and desarts by themselues there were other which were mued vp and enclosed in cels and wals which had not so much libertie as Eremites had but kept alwayes in their cages and closets and soe in miserie spent their dayes and these were called Anchorites that is separated set apart from all men and liuing by themselues There was a third sorte called Coenobites which liued in companies as it were in Colledges by them selues had all things common And these properly were called Monks Bell. lib. 2. de monach cap. 3. This controuersie hath many questiōs 1 Concerning the beginning original of Monks of their diuers sects 2. partes 2 Concerning Counsels of perfection whether they differ from Euangelicall precepts 3 Concerning vowes in generall three partes First whether it be lawfull for Christians
debent Cui fidei tantum iuristribuit Apostolus vt eam potestatem appellaret dicens Mulier non habet potestatē sui corporis sed vir c. Maried couples doe owe fayth troth one to the other which mutual troth the Apos maketh such accoūt of that he giueth it the name of power saying The woman hath not power of her owne bodie but the man and likewise the man c. Augustine sayth that by the very plighting of their troth each to other they receiue mutuall power and interest one of anothers bodie But this troth was plighted before the consummation of their mariage Ergo they had one interest in another then and can do nothing one without the consent of the other de bon coniugal cap. 3. THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the rules and discipline of Monasticall life THis question hath foure partes First of the solitarie and seuere kind of life in Monkes and Eremites Secondly of their canonicall houres appoynted for prayer Thirdly of their habite and apparell Fourthly of their maintenance whether it ought to come by their labour THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE solitarie and austere life of Monkes The Papists TO liue in solitarie places to weare sack-cloth to be giuen continually to error 94 fasting to lie hard to fare meanely and by other such wayes to punish and afflict the bodie they say are notable meanes to bring the soule to the contemplation of heauenly things 1 John Baptist liued in the desart fared coursely and was barely apparelled he ate Locusts and wilde honie and ware a garment of Camels haire he was a right paterne of true Eremites Bellarm. cap. 39. lib. 2. de Monach. Answer First Johns life was not so austere as they make it for the place where he liued was not so solitarie but that there were villages and houses not far off as it may appeare by the peoples resort vnto him his apparel was of Camels hayre and was somewhat course yet no such thing as sack-cloth or haire-cloth for of the finest of the Camels haire Chamblets and Grograines are made that are had in price amongst vs his diet also in eating Locusts wilde honie was vsual in that coūtrey Secondly we denie not but Iohn liued an austere life because he was a preacher of repentance had a singular office to prepare men for the cōming of Christ Therfore his calling being extraordinary he cannot be an author of an ordinary calling among Christians Thirdly seeing Christ came eating and drinking liued amongst men and was apparelled as others were why should Christians rather choose to imitate the Baptist who had no office or ministerie in the Gospel Math. 11.11 then our Sauiour Christ whose life and doctrine is for our imitation The Protestants THat the solitarie life of Eremites in flying the comfortable societie of men and their rigorous manner in the vnnatural chastising of their bodies is contrarie to the rule of the Gospell thus we shew it 1 Heb. 10.24.25 Let vs consider one another and prouoke one another to good workes not forsaking the assemblies of our selues together as the maner of some is but exhorting one another here the Apostle speaketh manifestly against those that shunne the societie and companie of their brethren because they must needes fayle in the dueties of charitie as in exhorting one another and prouoking to good works these dueties Eremites can not performe therefore their life is vnlawfull and Math. 24 it is a note of false prophets and false Christs to liue in the desarts Againe they that loue solitarie places doe offer themselues to tentation and fall into the snares of the diuel God saw it was not good for Adam no not in Paradise to liue alone but I think their desarts are farre vnlike to Paradise Christ to be tempted of the diuell was lead into the Wildernes Therfore such places are fit for Sathans working The preacher sayth Two are better then one for if one ouercome him two shal stand against him Eccles. 4.12 We are better able being ayded by our brethren to resist Sathan then being alone We ought not then to tempt God and not knowing our own strength to goe forth into solitarie places and as it were prouoke Sathan to the Combat 2 That cruel and inhumane kind of chastising their bodies by fasting other discipline vtterly is vnlawful The Monks called Grandimōtenses did weare shirts of maile next their bodies the Charter Monkes haire-cloth the Monks Flagellants went bare-foote in linnen shirts leauing an open place in the backe where they did daylie whip themselues before the people till the blood followed Moses a certaine Abbot did so afflict his bodie with fasting and watching that for 2. or 3. daies together many times he had no appetite at all to his meat neither could sleepe An other Eremite as Cassianus writeth did purpose with himselfe not to eate meate vnlesse he had some guest or stranger with him and so was constrayned to abstaine somtime fiue dayes together two other Monasticall brethren trauayling in the desart of Thebaide did vow not to take any sustenance but such as God should send them and as they went a certaine wilde people contrarie to their custome offered them meat the one tooke it as sent of God the other refused it because he thought it to be sent rather of man then of God and so died Basilius magnus and Gregor Nazianzene did so pluck downe themselues by immoderate fasting that when they were called to bee Bishops they were not able to sustaine the labour thereof Where in all the scriptures learned these men thus to punish their bodies this is not with Saint Paul to subdue and bring vnder the flesh but to kill and destroy it contrary to that saying of Saint Paul No man euer yet hated his own flesh but loueth cherisheth it see I pray you how these men loued and cherished their bodies Let vs heare what Aug. sayth Tudeseris res humanas segregas te vt nemo te videat Cui proderis tu ad hoc peruenisses si nemo tibi profuisset An quia veloces pedes tibi videris habuisse ad transeundum praecisurus es pontem Thou leauest the care of humane things and separatest thy selfe that no man should see thee to whom doest thou good in so doe doing Hadst thou come to this perfection thy selfe if no man had done thee good because thou hast quickly passed ouer wilt thou cut off the bridge that no man else should passe See then Augustine maketh the heremiticall life altogether vnprofitable to men THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the habite and shauing of Monkes The Papists BOth these superstitious customes for Monks to be knowne by their coules error 95 shauen crowns they receiue and allow as cōmendable and fit for them to be knowen by Beside some shew of antiquitie scripture they haue none but their best reason is this that as Senators souldiers Noble mē rustikes are knowē by
to come Ans. Mark expoundeth Mathew He saith It shall neuer be forgiuen Mark 3.29 So that not to be forgiuen either in this world or the world to come is nothing els but neuer to be forgiuen for if it be not forgiuen in this life it shall neuer be forgiuen Bellarm. Yea but Mathew must expound Marke because he setteth it downe more fully and Marke doth but abridge the Gospell written by S. Matthew De Purgat lib. 1. cap. 4. Ans. But why should not Mark rather expound Mathew seeing he writ after him and we vse to expound the former writers by the later not contrariwise AN APPENDIX OR AN APPERTINENCE TO this part concerning the burials and funerals of the dead THere are certaine poynts wherein there is no great variance or dissension betweene vs. First we confesse that it is meete and conuenient that the bodies of Christians being departed should after a seemely and comely manner be brought to the graue as Dauid commendeth the men of Iabesh Gilead for burying the bodie of Saul 2. Sam. 2.5 The brethren also tooke the bodie of Stephen buried it Act. 8.2 Secondly it is not to be denied but that lamentatioÌ„ and sorow may be made for the dead obseruing S. Pauls rule that We mourne not as those that haue no hope that is excessiuely 1. Thess. 4.13 where S. Paul doth not simply forbid Christians to sorow but not as the Gentiles The brethreÌ„ also made great lamentation for Stephen Act. 8.2 Thirdly we doe also graunt that according to the diuers customes of couÌ„treys it is not vnlawfull to vse some comely rites and ceremonies in the buriall of the dead not for religion but for orders sake as among the Israelites the mourners were wont to goe about in the streetes Ecclesiast 12.5 And Christ commended the woman in the Gospell for anoynting of him against his buriall Mark 14. But beside these poynts by vs confessed and acknowledged there are other more waightie matters as touching the order of funerals wherein we worthily and iustly dissent from our aduersaries error 16 1 They doe attribute much to the places where men are buried as in Churches and Churchyards but especially vnder the Altar Rhemist as the soules of the righteous doe rest in Christ who is that altar vnder the which the Apostle sawe the soules of Martyrs so for the correspondence to the place in heauen their bodies are commonly layd vnder the altar where the sacrifice of the body of Christ is daylie offered Annot. Apocalyps 6. vers 9. Ans. The altar of the Crosse was the onely place where the bodie of Christ was sacrificed neither need it to be often offered in sacrifice but it sufficed once onely to haue been done Heb. 9.25.27 And in the Communion we acknowledge no sacrifice but of praise and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 It is kept onely in remembrance of the death of Christ 1. Cor. 11.25 And how should it be auaileable for the dead seeing it profiteth not all the liuing but onely those that are present which doe eate and drinke the holy elements of bread and wine in remembrance of the bodie and blood of Christ giuen and shed for them So saith the scripture Doe this as oft as you doe it in remembrance of me 1. Cor. 11.25 The doers therefore agents and receiuers haue the present benefite not they which are absent how then can the dead receiue any solace by it It profiteth then not a whit to be layd in Churches or Churchyards or other hallowed places as they call them for all places are alike neither helpeth it the dead to be buried in one place more then another for God shall command the sea and all other places to giue vp their dead Apocalyps 20. The very heathen did confesse as much one sayth It skilleth not humÃne an sublimè putrescam whether I rot vnder or aboue the ground And another thus writeth Coelo tegitur qui non habet vrnam Heauen is a couering to him that hath no other coffin It were a foule shame then for Christians to exceede the very Gentiles in their superstitious conceits Augustine sayth Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura preciosa oberit pio vilis aut nulla If sumptuous funerals profite the wicked then homely or no burials doe hurt the godly Therefore as it helpeth not a wicked man to be buried in one place more then another so it doth not hinder or hurt the godly and righteous man 2 We condemne also their superstitious ceremonies which they vse at their error 17 funerals as the burning of Tapers which signifieth say they that the soules of the dead are aliue Bellarm. de purgator lib. 2. cap. 19. Ans. First this superstitious vse of setting vp candles was directly forbidden in the Elibertine Councel Canon 34. Of the like sort also were other superstitious vsages as the going about of the belman to will the people to pray for their soules the ringing or iangling of bels to bring their soules to heauen with queere songs and other melodie to commit the bodies to the ground and commending their soules to the protection of Saints We denie not but comely and decent orders voyde of superstition may be vsed according to the fashion of the countrey as Iacobs bodie was embaulmed after the manner of the Egyptians Genes 50.2 At the buriall of their Kings the Israelites vsed to burne odors Iere. 34.5 The Iewes manner was to wash the bodies of the dead to winde it vp in a linnen cloth and burie it with spices and odors So our Sauiours bodie was buried after the manner of the Iewes Iohn 19.40 We reade also that Ioseph was put into a coffin or chest Genes 50.26 Of these and the like customes Augustine giueth a rule writing vpon those words in the Gospell Iohn 19.40 As it was the manner of the Iewes to burie Non mihi videtur Euangelista sic frustra dicere voluisse ita quippe admonuit in huiusmodi officijs quae mortuis exhibentur morem cuiusque gentis esse seruandum in Iohann tract 120. Me thinketh the Euangelist sayd not thus without cause hereby letting vs to vnderstand that in performing such dueties of buriall to the dead the manner and custome of euery countrey is to be kept The Iewes also had a custome with some companie or frequencie of people to bring their dead to the ground Eccle. 12.5 And in the while to vse some admonition to the people concerning death and mortalitie which came in by sinne and of the wrath and mercie of God Syrus interp in Mark 14.3 Neither doe we see why it is not lawfull now among Christians at funerals and burials to haue some godly sermon and exhortation to put the people in mind of their end and to comfort them with the hope of the resurrection as also to giue God thankes for those his faithfull seruants that did glorifie him by their life and by their godly departure This seemeth also to haue been the
the sacrament of the Lords bodie Baptisme is equiualent to the word of God by our aduersaries own confession Ergo also it is of equall value and dignitie with the other sacrament THE TWELFTH GENERALL CONTROVERSY OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISME THis controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions 1. Of the name and definition of Baptisme Secondly of the partes of Baptisme Thirdly of the necessitie of Baptisme Fourthly of the Minister of Baptisme Fiftly of the parties which are to be baptized Sixtly of the effects of Baptisme Seuenthly of the difference of Christs Baptisme and Iohns Eightly of the ceremonies of Baptisme THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptisme COncerning the name there is no question betweene vs for the name of Baptisme hath the originall and beginning from the scripture Saint Paul vseth this word Coloss. 2.12 We are buryed with him through Baptisme And againe Heb. 6.2 All the question is about the definition of Baptisme The Papists error 98 THey define Baptisme to bee a sacrament of regeneration by water in the worde that is not which signifieth and sealeth vnto vs our regeneration and assureth vs of remission of sinnes but actually iustifieth and regenerateth vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism cap. 1. The Protestants WE rather according to the scriptures define baptisme to be a signe or seale of our regeneration and new birth whereby wee are assured that as verily by fayth in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sinnes as our bodies are washed with water in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost So that Baptisme doth not actually bestow remission of sinnes by the work wrought but is a pledge and seale of the righteousnesse of fayth as Saint Paul sayth of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 for it is not the washing of the flesh by water but the establishing of the heart with fayth and grace that saueth vs 1. Pet. 3.21 See this poynt handled more at large Controuers 11. next before quest 2. part 1. Augustine saith Per fidem renascimur in baptismate by fayth wee are borne agayne in Baptisme De tempor serm 53. It is then the proper act of fayth to regenerate vs not of Baptisme the vse and end whereof is to strengthen and increase our fayth THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE PARTES which are the matter and forme of Baptisme AS touching the matter that is the externall element vsed in Baptisme there is no question betweene vs but that it ought to bee plaine and common water Act. 10.47 Saint Peter saith Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized Wherefore wee condemne the foolish and vngodly practises and inuentions of heretikes that either exclude water altogether as the Manichees with others or doe vse any other element as the Iacobites that in stead of water burned them that were to be baptized with a whot yron or as the Aethiopians which are called Abissines that vsed fire in stead of water misconstruing the words of the Gospell Matth. 2.11 That Christ should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire which is not literally to bee vnderstoode but thereby is signified the internall and forceable working of the spirite which kindleth zeale and loue in our hearts as fire Concerning the forme of Baptisme we all agree that no other is to be vsed then that prescribed by our Sauiour Christ to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost that it is neither lawfull to change this forme in sense as many heretikes haue done nor yet in words as to leaue out any of the three persons in Trinitie and inclusiuely to vnderstand them by naming of one for whereas some alleadge that place Act. 2.38 Bee yee baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sinnes to proue that it is lawfull onely in the name of Christ to baptize wee are to vnderstand that the forme of Baptisme is not in that place expresly set downe but the scope onely and end of Baptisme which is to assure vs of remission of sinnes in the name of Christ as Beza very well noteth vpon that place The point of difference betweene vs concerning the forme of Baptisme is this The Papists THey are bold to affirme that this forme of Baptisme to baptize in the name error 99 of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is not fully concluded out of Scripture but deliuered by tradition for say they the commandement of Christ to baptize in the name of the Trinitie Matth. 28. may bee vnderstoode thus to baptize them into the faith of the Trinitie or by the authoritie of the Trinitie And it were sufficient by those words to doe and performe it in act without saying the wordes were it not that wee haue otherwise learned by tradition that this very forme of wordes is to bee kept Bellarmine de baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. The Protestants WE neede no tradition for this matter the very forme which is to bee vsed in Baptisme is plainely proued out of the Scriptures for that commandement of Christ Goe and baptize c. doth necessarily imply a forme of speech to be vsed Wee grant that in the Scriptures this word name is taken for power vertue authoritie as Act. 3.6 In the name of Iesus arise and walke So also as there is a Baptisme with water there may be a baptizing with fire Matth. 3.11 Wherefore if part of the commandement bee to bee taken properlie and literally as this Goe and baptize why not the rest also In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost If then the whole commaundement bee properly and plainely vnderstoode how can they baptize in the name of the Trinitie vnlesse the Trinitie bee spoken and named Secondly it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture that this forme was vsed in the Apostles time As Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as wee As if Saint Peter should haue reasoned thus these haue receiued the giftes of the holy Ghost Ergo they may be also baptized in the name of the holy Ghost Likewise Act. 19.2 When the brethren at Ephesus had answered Paul that they had not heard whether there were a holy Ghost he saith vnto them Vnto what then were you baptized By this interrogatorie it appeareth it was their manner to baptize in the name of the holy Ghost and so consequently of the whole Trinitie Wee haue no cause then to flie vnto tradition this matter being so plainely decided by the Scripture Augustin tract in Iohann 80. Vpon those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 15.3 You are cleane thorough the word which I haue spoken vnto you Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit sacramentum Take away the word and what remaineth in Baptisme but bare water let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament The forme then of Baptisme is the word which Christ
the Baptisme instituted by Christ were another Baptisme then Iohns was and yet hee himselfe was baptized of Iohn then it would followe that wee are baptized now with another Baptisme then Christ himselfe was for hee receiued Iohns Baptisme but this were very absurd to say that there is not the same Baptisme of the head and the members of Christ and his Church Ergo Iohns Baptisme all one with Christs Bellarmine denieth that the proper end and scope of Iohns Baptisme was for remission of sinnes yet Augustine granteth it who notwithstanding being carried away with the error of that time doth else where put some difference betweene the Baptisme of Iohn and Christ Si quis contendat in baptismo Iohannis dimissa esse peccata non ago pugnanter If any man will contend that remission of sinnes also was giuen in Iohns Baptisme I will not bee against it There being then the same proper end and scope of both these Baptismes how can they choose but be all one THE EIGHT QVESTION OF the ceremonies and rites of Baptisme The Papists error 112 THey haue brought into the Sacrament of Baptisme a multitude of superstitious ceremonies whereby they haue greatly polluted the holy Sacrament of Baptisme mixing therewith their owne inuentions First before Baptisme they haue deuised these toyes to bee vsed First they doe exorcise coniure and exufflate the euill spirite from the partie to bee baptized Secondly they touch the eares and nostrels with spittle that his eares may bee opened to heare the worde and his nostrels to discerne betweene the smell of good and euil Thirdly the Priest signeth his eyes eares mouth breast forehead nostrels with the signe of the crosse that all his sences thereby may be defended 4. Then halowed salt is put into his mouth that he may be seasoned with wisdome and be kept from putrifiyng in sinne 5. The partie is anoynted then with oyle in his breast that he may be safe from euill suggestions between the shoulders which signifieth the receiuing of spiritual strength Secondly these ceremonies doe accompany Baptisme it selfe 1. The Font and water therein is consecrated and halowed in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost 2. Hee is thrise dipped in the water to signifie the being of Christ 3. dayes in the graue Thirdly after Baptisme they haue this vse 1. He is anoynted with holie Chrisme in the top of the head thereby is become a Christian. 2. A white garment is put vpon him to betoken his regeneration 3. A vaile is put vpon his head in token that he is now crowned with a royal Diademe 4. A burning taper is put into his hand to fulfil that saying in the Gospel Let your light so shine before men c. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism 25.26.27 Catechism Rom. p. 310. Gabr. Biel. lib. 4. distinct 6. qu. 3. The Protestants AGainst these Popish ceremonies which they vse in baptisme we doe reason thus 1 It is contrary to the rule of the Gospell that there should bee such types shadowes significations brought into the seruice of God as they make in Baptisme for seeing we haue the body which is Christ all such shadowes ought to be abolished Coloss. 2.17 2 In one sacrament they haue forged and found out many as their chrisme oyle salte spittle which they make not onely seales of holy things but giuers and conferrers of grace which is more then any sacrament can haue and it is contrary to the scripture for the spirit of GOD is as the winde that bloweth where it listeth Iohn 3. It is not tyed to creatures elements externall signes as they include the spirite as it were in these outward things which haue power as they affirme to giue wisedome strength power against the diuell and such like But Saynt Paul sayth that the weapons of our warfare are not carnall 2. Corinthian 10.4 The meanes whereby Christans both obtayne spirituall graces and shend them from euill are spirituall For if in Christ Circumcision auayle not any thing which was notwithstanding instituted of God but fayth is all in all Galath 5.6 Much more vaine and vnauaileable are the deuises and inuentions of men 3 This beggerly company of ceremonies doth also deface and impugne the sincere and pure institution of Christ None of all those ceremonies were vsed when Christ himselfe was baptized Math. 3. which notwithstanding had beene most fitte considering the worthynes of his person that was baptized Neither did Christ giue any such thing in charge to his Apostles but biddeth them onely preach and baptize in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Math. 28.19 nor yet were any such ceremonies in vse in the Apostles time Saynt Peter sayth Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized He calleth not for oyle salt spittle or any such thing but onely for water Augustine vtterly misliketh this combersome rabble of needlesse ceremonies Ipsam religionem quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit onerib premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur They doe cumber religion with their burdensome inuentions which Christ made free with a very few sacraments so that the Iewes case was more tolerable who though they knew not the libertie of the Gospell yet were subiect to the legall ceremonies not to the inuentions of men And is it not euen thus I pray you in the Popish Church for neuer was Iewish circumcisiō stuffed with the third part of ceremonies which their Baptisme is defiled withall THE THIRTEENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SVPPER OR EVCHARIST THis Controuersie hath two parts First of the sacrament it self Secondly of the sacrifice which they say is offered vp in the sacrament which they call the sacrifice of the Masse THE FIRST PART OF THE SAcrament of the Eucharist THis part of the controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions First whether the body of Christ be really and substantially in the sacrament Secondly whether the elements of bread and wine be changed conuerted and transubstantiate into the very body and flesh of Christ. Thirdly whether the Eucharist remayne a sacrament after the vse and celebration Fourthly of the outward elements in this sacrament Fiftly of the words of consecration Sixtly of the proper effect of the Lords supper Seuenthly of the maner of celebrating it Eightly whether it ought to be ministred in one kinde Ninthly whether it is to be adored THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament The Papists IN the sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine by error 113 the efficacie of the word of Christ spoken by the Priest is really verily and substantially present the naturall body and blood of Christ which was conceiued of the virgin Marie the same bodie that is now in heauen Rhemist Mat. 26. sect 4.
as much as Bernard sayth whose speech they themselues allow In sacrameÌ„to exhiberi veram carnis Christi substantiaÌ„ sed spiritualiter non carnaliter that the very substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vnto vs in the sacrament but spiritually not carnally This Bellarmine acknowledgeth to bee true though hee would not haue the worde spiritually to bee vsed lest it might bee as hee sayth by vs misconstrued This then is our fayth and iudgement that wee are verilie in this sacrament engrafted into the bodie of Christ and doe truely eate his flesh and drink his blood but all this is done spirituallie onely and by faith As for their carnall eating and deuouring of Christ we vtterlie reiect and condemne it Argum. 1. In the receiuing of the sacrament there is a double coniunction we are ioyned to Christ make one body also amongst our selues so saith S. Paul 1. Cor. 10.16.17 We are made partakers of the body of Christ and wee that are many are one bread and one body but our participation with the mysticall bodie of Christ is spirituall Ergo also our communication with his naturall body Fulk in hunc locum Arg. 2. If the body of Christ be in the sacrament theÌ„ is it eaten torne with the teeth And what is eaten goeth into the belly is cast out into the draught Mark 7.19 I pray you what is now become of the body of Christ doth it passe the same way that other meates doe Bellarm. answereth lib. 1. cap. 11. ad argum 5. that they are the accidents of the bread and wine which are eaten and chawen or rent by the teeth not the body of Christ and yet the body of Christ goeth down into the stomack but no further but when the formes of bread wine begin to be corrupted there the body of Christ goeth away Bellarm. cap. 14. Ans. 1. This is new learning that the accidents of meate are chawen in the mouth not the meate it selfe that the formes only not the substance is altred corrupted in the stomack Say also that men are nourished with accidents not with the substance If the priest chance to drink too deepe of the chalice and so become drunk I pray you what is it that maketh him so light headed Is it think you the accidents onely of wine Surely a drunken man would not say it If a Mouse chance to creepe into your pixe and fil her hungry belly with your God-amight what is it that the Mouse feedeth vpon trow you they bee accidents onely for you say that the consecrated host goeth no further then the stomack and yet it is too much that the housel of Christians should be housed in a mouses belly These are but ridiculous and light questions yet such as haue troubled your grauest and sagest heads and remayne vnanswered 2. Bellarmin denieth that the body of Christ being eaten goeth any further then the stomack But our Rhemists goe further they say that we are made a peece of his body and blood They should rather haue sayd that his body and blood is made a peece of vs being conuerted into our substance But silly men we pitie them If we should presse them still with these questions they would sooner run mad then find out any reasonable and sober answere for vs. Argum. 3. Christ in his flesh is ascended vp to heauen and there must remayne till his comming againe Act. 3.21 Agayne he saith The poore you shal haue alwayes but me alwayes you cannot haue Mark 14. Ergo Christ being now in his humanity in heauen cannot bee present in the sacrament vpon earth Bellarmine answereth that the carnall presence of Christ doth not draw him out of heauen his naturall bodie remaineth there still yet by his omnipotent power he can make his bodie to be in many places at once cap. 14. Ans. If Christs bodie be in heauen and in earth and in many places at once it must either be his owne naturall bodie which was borne of the Virgine Mary or he must euery day create himselfe a new bodie but this were to too absurd to be granted that euery day there should be a new Christ. Neither can the first be admitted for a natural bodie hath a natural presence but so hath not Christs bodie in the Sacrament for it is not there naturally being without shape or forme neither visible nor sensible And how can it stand with the propertie of a true naturall bodie to be in a thousand places at once for so must Christs needs be and in more too seeing he is kept and hanged vp in euery popish Church And further if totus Christus whole Christ be in the Sacrament both with his bodie and soule you must either graunt that there are many whole Christs seeing he is in many places at once or els if there be but one whole Christ his humanitie must be dispersed euery where as his Godhead is and so are you against your wils become Vbiquitaries Hearken what Augustine sayth Cauendum est ne ita diuinitatem adstruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must take heede we doe not so maintaine the diuine nature of the man Christ that we take away the nature of his bodie Argum. 4. The fathers in the law did eate the same spiritual meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke in their Sacraments that we doe 1. Corinth 10.2.3 but they did not eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood but onely spiritually by faith Ergo no more doe we Argum. 5. There remained wine still after the consecration and distribution amongst the Apostles for Christ saith He will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine Math. 26.29 So S. Paul calleth the other element bread after the consecration 1. Corinth 10.17 We that are many are one bread because we are partakers of one bread Likewise cap. 11.26 Ergo there remaineth still bread and wine in the Sacrament And therefore no bodie of Christ for they cannot be there both together as they teach Lastly we must vnderstand that this their deuised and forged opinion of the reall presence of Christ is of no antiquitie in the Church neither was there any question about it for a 1000. yeeres after Christ til the time of Berengarius who liued about Anno. 1060. who was sore troubled for maintaining the truth against the carnall presence and vnder Pope Leo the 9. and Nicholas the 2. was constrained twise to recant yet there was no publique lawe or decree made in the Church concerning transubstantiation till the Councel of Laterane which was held vnder Pope Innocent the 3. Anno. 1215. And that this grosse opinion fauoureth not a whit of antiquitie it may appeaâ—e by the resolute iudgement of Augustine Sacramenta ex similitudine ipsarum rerum nomina habent secundum quendam moduÌ„ sacramentuÌ„ corporis Christi corpus Christi est c. The Sacraments because of some likenes doe beare the
lier Augustine sayth of Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam simul in sole luna cruce esse non potest Christ according to his corporall presence cannot be in the Sunne the Moone and vpon the Crosse all at one time And concerning the other poynt he writeth thus Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be in no place then are they not at all Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a thing superfluous needles and vnprofitable First the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ is as well sealed vnto vs in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other Secondly that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament is not perceiued by any sense for they neither tast him see him nor feele him it must be then a worke of faith but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent as being supposed in this manner to be present Ergo this kind of presence is needles Argum. 3. It is an inglorious vnworthie and vnseemely thing that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine deuoured and chawed eaten and gnawed of mice subiect to mould and rottennes to be spilt vpon the ground burnt in the fire for all these inconueniences must needes follow vpon the carnall presence Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb to be swathed in swadling bands and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vpon earth Ans. First as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ while he liued in the world which was buffeted whipped pearced with nayles crucified and of his glorious and impassible bodie now that it may in like manner be rent and diuided Secondly neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities as to rottennes corruption consumption in the fire as his bodie is now in the Sacrament If it were then verified in Christ Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ that it cannot suffer any such things How then are you not ashamed to affirme that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament the very bodie and blood of Christ seeing those elements if they be kept long will waxe sower and mouldie and fall to corruption which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ were great impietie Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation The Papists IF any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Concil Tridentin sess 13. can 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra euchar cap. 19. Rhemist Matth. 17. sect 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount as wee reade Math. 17. sect 1. Ergo he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine Rhemist Ans. First your argument followeth not Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie Ergo he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified Ergo he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen Secondly the question is not so much of Christs power as of his will therefore you conclude not aright Christ is able to doe it Ergo he will Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie Rhemist Ioh. 2. sect 2. Ans. First when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion as we haue for this miracle we will giue eare vnto you Secondly and when it shall appeare to the senses that the bread is changed into flesh as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine by the colour and tast we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread then they did of the other of water Thirdly if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest with a fewe words to doe as much as Christ himselfe could when he was present Fourthly all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ not a will or purpose to worke any such change or conuersion Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged yet the formes remaine still for these causes First because if the formes also should be changed there should be no sensible signe left and so no Sacrament Secondly the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present though he see it not Thirdly Christ would not haue the formes altered because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First your first reason is insufficient for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament but the substance of thē for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement namely as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs but the substance Ergo not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe Likewise in Baptisme it is not the forme or outward accident of water that is the signe but the substance of water that washeth 2. It is a more liuely operation of faith to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen then present in earth although he appeare not to the senses And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith as he is now in heauen Hope saith the Apostle entreth into that which is within the vaile whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs Heb. 6.19 Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things within the vaile that is things
person of Christ euen as his humanitie so that Christ was bread by consecration as he was man by his incarnation an horrible and monstrous opinion which is fathered vpon Rupertus the Abbot Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opinion who likewise affirmed that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ and vnited vnto him yet not immediatly as the other taught but by the mediation and meanes of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements First some would haue the forme onely of bread chaunged not the matter as Durandus Secondly some contrariwise would haue the matter altered and the forme to remaine Thirdly the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance both in matter and forme to be changed the outward formes and accidents onely remaining ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram Eucharist cap. 11. Thus men when they begin once to leaue the truth the Lord leaueth them to themselues and they runne mad in their owne inuentions not finding any end and so it is iustly come vpon them as S. Paul saith of the heathen Because when they knew God they did not glorifie him as God neither were thankfull they became vaine in their own imaginations and their foolish hart was full of darkenes when they professed themselues to be wise they became fooles Rom. 1.21.22 We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions which will holde no water will betake vs to the fountaine of truth This then to conclude is our definitiue sentence and full determination according to the Scriptures that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament neither by conuersion of the bread into his body either wholly or in parte nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together but he doth verily exhibite himselfe with all his benefits spiritually by faith to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer as we haue sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures THE THIRD QVESTION WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated be a Sacrament though it be neither eaten nor drunk The Papists THe elements in the Sacrament that is the bread and wine being once consecrate error 116 which say they is done by the prolation of those words hoc est corpus meum This is my body whether they be receiued or not at that instant but be reserued and kept in boxes and pixes and other vessels of the Church for daies weekes moneths to be caried solemnely to those that are sick and to be applyed to other vses are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil sess 13. can 4.7 Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Argum. 1. Christs words which were spoken ouer the bread This is my body were true as soone as he brought them forth before he said Take eat and so likewise of the cup therefore it was a Sacrament before they did receiue and eate it and had beene a Sacrament still if it had not bene receiued at all at that time Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Those wordes of Christ This is my body were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it but first as S. Math. setteth it downe he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples saying Take eate and then follow those words This is my body Math. 26.26 which seeme to haue bene vttered euen in that instant when they tooke the bread and began to eate it Secondly the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise partly of a precept the promise is this Hoc est corpus meum This is my body the precept Accipite manducate Take eate Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise then we performe the condition vnlesse therefore accordingly we doe take and eat it it is not the body of Christ. The Protestants THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the vse thereof so that though some form of words be pronounced ouer it if it be not receiued and eaten and drunk it is no sacrament neither is that which remaineth after the distribution the Eucharist being ended either of the bread or wine any part of the sacrament but so much onely as is taken and vsed Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament vnlesse it be vsed according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it but to the institution it belongeth on the behalfe of the Minister to blesse break and distribute it on the behalfe of the communicants to take eate and drinke it in them all thereby to shew the Lords death and to doe it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by vsing the words of benediction onely but by the whole action for how can they shew the Lords death or doe it in remembrance of Christ vnlesse they take and eate Ergo if it be not so vsed it is no Sacrament Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike and of one and the selfesame kinde there is one way of instituting and consecrating both but the water in baptisme is no part of the Sacrament but during the solemne action of baptizing afterward it returneth to the common vse so much as is not vsed Ergo it is so also in the Eucharist for as Christ saith to his Apostles Ite baptizate Goe and baptize so that it was no Sacrament vnlesse some body were baptized euen so he saith Accipite â—anducate Take eate No SacrameÌ„t then vnlesse it be receiued and eaten And here I pray you let it be noted how well the Iesuits agree amongst themselues our Rhemists doe commend the reseruing also of the water in baptisme and carrying of it home to giue it the diseased to drink annot Iam. 5. sect 5. Bellar. saith that Res permanens in baptismo That the thing permanent in Baptisme that is water which remaineth is not the sacrament but ipsa actio the action of baptizing it selfe and alloweth onely the Eucharist to be reserued and remaine a Sacrament Etiam extra vsum Without the vse thereof Bellar li. 4. de Eucharist cap. 3. But we haue shewed already that both the Sacraments are halowed and sanctified alike and that both in the one and the other the vse onely and present action according to Christs institution maketh the Sacrament In Augustines time some vsed to receiue the Communion dayly but vpon the Sabboth or Lords day it was commonly receiued of all Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec laudo nec reprehendo omnib tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor Euery day to receiue the Eucharist I neither commend nor dispraise it but euery Lords day I doe perswade men and exhort all to communicate It should seeme then that in those daies there was no such superstitious reseruation of the Sacrament seeing euery day or at the least euery Sabboth it was administred THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the elements or materiall part of the Sacrament namely bread and wine The Papists 1. The bread
138. Out of Christs side dying vpon the Crosse issued the sacraments of the Church namely Baptisme and the Eucharist He draweth not both water and wine to signifie one sacrament but applyeth them to both THE FIFTH QVESTION OF THE wordes of consecration The Papists THese words say they This is my body to be spoken ouer the bread and the error 119 like ouer the wine This is the new testament in my blood are the very forms of the Sacraments and words of consecration which being vttered immediatly the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people but they are onely consecratory wordes to be pronounced ouer the elements Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram cap. 13. Argu. If these were not the onely words of consecration This is my body and if presently vpon the vttering of these words the body of Christ was not present then should not the words of Christ be true Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants 1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all by vertue whereof the elements are conuerted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ as we haue before shewed A consecration we graunt which is a setting apart of the elements which before were common to holy vses and by the vetue of Christs institution to be made vnto vs signes of holy things Secondly those are not the onely words of consecration This is my body and This is the cup of my blood and yet Christs wordes shall be true for we must not dismember the sentence Christ saith Take eate ye this is my body it is then made his body to be taken and eaten by taking then and eating the elements also are consecrated not onely by saying of the words ye must not then diuide the words of the institution for then they shall no more consecrate then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words as This is or My body and leaue out the rest Thirdly that these are not the onely words of consecration it appeareth because both the bread was broken and distributed and the Cuppe also before Christ spake those words as Math. 26.26 for first Christ saith Take eate and Take and drink before he said either This is my body or This is my blood neither can ye well tell yourselues which are your consecratory wordes for the Cup whether those that Mathew setteth downe This is my blood of the newe testament or as Luke hath This Cup is the new testament in my blood Nay Bellarmine vseth an other forme beside these Hic est calixâ—sâ—â— guinis This is the Cup of my blood Bellarm. cap. 13. Fourthly we conclude then that not onely these words but al the rest belonging to the institution are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament both to instruct the people that they may know the right vse of the Sacrament and they help also with the rest of the whole action of taking eating drinking praying thankesgiuing to consecrate and make the SacrameÌ„t as we haue shewed more at large before controu 11. quest 1. part 2. to that place we referre the Reader THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE PROPER effect and vse of the Lords Supper The Papists THey doe generally holde that this Sacrament was not properly ordeined error 120 for remission of sinnes neither that the Sacrament hath any such vse but it serueth onely as a preseruatiue against sinne Trident. Concil sess 13. can 5. Bellarm lib. 4. de sacram cap. 17. Secondly they teach that faith is not sufficient to prepare vs for the Communion and although a man be neuer so contrite quantumcunque se contritos existiment yet they must be throughly purged and absolued from their mortall sinnes before they come to communicate Concil Trident. sess 13. canon 11. Bellarm ibid. Argum. 1. They that receiue the Communion are one body as they are partakers of one bread 1. Cor. 10.17 but they which are in any greeuous and deadly sinne are not liuely members of Christ and of his mysticall body therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Neither doe we affirme that men ought rashly presumptuously to come to the Lords table but to repent them throughly of their sinnes and to haue a stedfast and liuely faith in Christ who cannot be said thus preparing themselues to remaine in their sinnes neither yet are they so fully acquited of them that they need not to receiue the Sacrament to their comfort and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sinnes Secondly wherefore all this hindreth not but that they should be true members of Christs body euen hauing a troubled conscience and labouring vnder the burthen of their sinnes for the weake and sicke parts of the bodie are they therfore no partes at all because of their infirmities Augustine saith very wel Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecunque peccata peccaÌ„t enim et filij Dei In quibus non est fides filij sunt Diaboli Euery sin maketh not a man the childe of the deuil for the Children of God also sinne but they which haue no faith are the sonnes of the Deuill Ergo all sinnes cut not men off from the body of Christ but onely the want of faith they then that haue sinned and doe repent them and come with faith are still the sonnes of God and members of Christs body Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper vse and end of diuerse Sacraments but Baptisme is receiued for remission of sinnes Ergo the Eucharist is not for that end Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. The death of Christ and so remission of sinnes purchased by the same is properly represented vnto vs in both Sacraments yet in a diuerse respect for as to be borne is one thing to be fed and nouâ—â—shed is another yet both worke the same thing in the body though diuersly for the birth giueth life meate and drink preserueth it the same difference is betweene Baptisme and the Lords Supper they both are seales vnto vs of our iustification in the remission of sinnes by Christ but by Baptisme we are initiated regenerate and borne anew and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirme encrease and nourish our faith already begun and planted in vs for the remission of sinnes and all other benefits of Christs passion The Protestants FIrst we doe truly affirme and teach that an especiall and principall vse of the Eucharist or Communion is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sinnes and yet we deny not but that it hath other vses beside for as in Baptisme not onely the washing away of our sinnes is shewed forth but it also betokeneth our dying to sinne and rising to newnes of life Ro. 6.3.4 So in the Lords supper whole Christ with all his benefites is exhibited vnto vs as it is a pledge vnto vs
not onely of remission of sinnes but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification 1. Cor. 1.30 that he will assist vs with his spirite and replenish our harts with grace Ioh. 4.14 yea the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ is a pledge vnto vs of the resurrection and of life eternall Ioh. 6.54 But that amongst the rest it also assureth vs of remission of sinnes thus it is proued Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith This is the blood of the new testament that is shed for many for remission of sinnes Math. 26.28 But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes Iere. 31.34 Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes if this sacrament did not serue for that vse Secondly we doe holde that to haue a liuely faith in the promises of God with repentance for our sinnes and a full purpose to amend our liues is a sufficient preparation for the Communion and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion till they haue fully satisfied for their sinnes as the Papists teach and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes for so few or none at all should be admitted to the Lords table but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort and assurance of remission of sinnes Argum. Iohn 6.35 He that beleeueth in me saith Christ shall neuer thirst S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues 1. Corin. 11.28 which is nothing els as himselfe expondethu it then to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Ergo the examination or triall of faith is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table Augustine saith Ad Deum acceditur fide sectando corde inhiando charitate currando We come or haue accesse vnto God in folowing him by faith seeking him in our heart and running to him with loue In Psalm 33. concion 2. Ergo by fayth we haue accesse vnto God Rom. 5.2 but a liuely fayth which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion The Papists 1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie Concil Constantiens sess 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 22. ratione 4. The Protestants 1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie it may be doubted seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist as they say there is of Baptisme All sacraments we graunt are necessary that is profitable expedient requisite so often as they may bee had But none so necessary that the want thereof vnto a faythfull man that in heart doth wish and desire them can be any hindrance to his saluation 2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion if his stomack be weake and not able to fast so long for otherwise if a man can abstaine we wish him so to do rather Saint Paul sheweth writing to the Corinthians 1. cap. 11.34 If any man be hungry let him eate at home Some of them he sayth came hungry some drunken vers 21. the Apostle commendeth neither but telleth them if they bee hungry they haue houses to eate in Againe in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament it doth euidently declare vnto vs that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament Augustine sayth Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while or after dinner neither dare wee forbid any so to doe so hee maketh it a thing indifferent to communicate fasting or otherwise The Papists 2 THey binde the people onely once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe Concil Trident. sess 13. can 9. The Protestants 2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles whom the Rhemists confesse to haue ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie Annotat. Act. 2. sect 6. So expounding the wordes of the text They continued dayly in breaking of bread 2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule who speaketh of often communicating Doe this sayth he as oft as you drink it 1. Corinth 11.25 For seeing the eating of that bread and drinking of that cuppe is nothing els but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come who seeth not that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred and shewed foorth 3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare Si panis quotidianus est cur post annum illum sumas accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit If it be thy daylie bread why doest thou take it but yearely take that daylie and continually which may profit thee daylie In Luk. serm 28. THE EIGHT QVESTION OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde The Papists error 123 CHristians say they are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds Concil Trident. sess 21. can 1. And whosoeuer saith that the Church hath erred or done amisse in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse should receiue in the one kinde that is bread onely Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both contrary to the determination of the Church let him bee accursed Concil Trident sess 21. can 2. Rhemist Iohn 6. sect 11. Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup for otherwise Christ should be deuided But euery spirit sayth the Apostle that dissolueth Iesus is of God 1. Iohn 4.3 Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde is as well partaker of whole Christ and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament as if hee receiued in both Bellarmin cap. 21. Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included as we haue shewed before the bread and wine are signes onely of his body and blood and therefore Christ is not diuided they being the signes onely and not the thing signified 2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them while they choose rather to follow their
the remission of sinnes in the blood of Christ is common to all faythfull Christians why should they not as well be partakers of the signe Argum. 4. This prohibition for lay men not to receiue in both kindes is but a late deuise of the Church of Rome not past two hundred yeare olde decreed no longer agoe then in the Councell of Constance Fox pag. 1150. yet after that he Councel of Basile graunted the vse and libertie of the cup to the Bohemians Fox pag. 694. Thus they take vpon them to ouer-rule mens consciences now restrayning now againe graunting libertie binding and loosing at their pleasure In Augustines time there was no such separation of the cuppe from the bread but both were indifferently vsed in the communion Cum cibo potu saith he id appetant homines vt neque esuriant neque sitiant hoc veraciter non praestat nisi iste cibus potus c. As men by their meate and drink doe prouide that they neither hunger nor thirst so this spirituall meate and drink worketh the same effect in vs. Whereupon it followeth that seeing in the sasacrament is contained and signified the full and sufficient nourishment of our soules by the flesh and blood of Christ it must needes be resembled by the outward full sufficient nourishment of our bodies which is not by eating alone but by eating and drinking THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE adoration of the Eucharist The Papists error 124 IT was decreed in the Councel of Trent that the Eucharist should be adored euen with the highest degree of worship Cultu latreiae which is proper to God that it should also be carried about in solemne processions to be shewed to the people to bee worshipped and adored of them And whosoeuer holdeth the contrary they pronounce accursed Trident. Concil sess 13. can 6. Argum. 1. Hebr. 1.6 Worship him all ye Angels Ergo Christ in the sacrament and wheresoeuer else his person is ought to bee adored of men and Angels Rhemist ibid. This Saint Paul meaneth they say by discerning the Lords bodie 1. Corinth 11.29 that is adoring worshipping it and making prayers vnto it Rhemist ibid. Answ. 1. We denie Christ to be present in the sacrament really corporally substantially therefore it is not to be adored 2. Although the body of Christ were present in that manner vnder the accidents of bread and wine yet vnlesse Christ bee so present that the elements or the accidents of the elements be ioyned and vnited vnto him in one person as the Godhead and humanitie make but one person hee is no more to bee adored then God the father is to bee worshipped in the Sunne or Moone in the which he is verily present But to say that the visible formes and elements are ioyned in an hypostaticall vnion to Christ as his humanity is to his Godhead it is great blasphemie 3. A reuerent estimation and discerning of the Lordes bodie we graunt in the sacrament in preferring the elements before all other meates and drinkes because of their mysticall signification as wee preferre the mysticall washing in Baptisme before all other but to kneele holde vp the handes and to worship a peece of bread wee count it grosse and abominable Idolatrie The Protestants THat the sacrament is not to be adored with any godly worship but onely to be duely reuerenced as an holy mysterie thus wee prooue it by the worde of God Argum. 1. In the first instituting of the sacrament the Apostles receiued it sitting not kneeling by taking of it not lifting vp their handes to it Ergo they did not adore it neither is it by vs to be adored Agayne Christ commaundeth vs onely to Take and eate and drinke and to doe all in remembrance of him the sacrament therefore was appoynted to be eaten and drunken not to be carried about or to bee gazed vpon or to be kneeled vnto Argum. 2. Christ as we haue shewed is no otherwise present in the Eucharist then in Baptisme But the water in Baptisme is not to be adored Ergo neither the bread in the sacrament Augustine did not so much as dreame of any adoration of the sacrament A Cerere Libero Paganorum dijs longè absumus quamus panis calicis sacramentum nostro ritu amplectimur Wee doe not worship the heathenish Gods of corne and wine Ceres and Bacchus although after our manner wee embrace the sacrament of the bread and of the cuppe His meaning is that Christians do not worship bread and wine in the sacrament as the heathen did Cont. Faust. In sacramenti sanctificatione distributione existimo Apostolum propriè iussisse fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orationes 1. Tim. 2.1 Quod verò quidam codices non habent orationes sed adorationes non arbitror scienter interpretatum In the consecrating and distributing of the sacrament I think the Apostle bade orations or prayers to be made not as some doe vnlearnedly interpret adorations or worshippings Epistol 59. Ergo hee approueth not the adoration of the sacrament AN APENDIX OR TENTH PART whether the wicked doe receiue the bodie of Christ. The Papists THe wicked they say doe in the sacrament eate the true flesh of Christ and error 125 drinke his blood though they be Infidels and ill liuers Argum. They are guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ 1. Corinth 11.27 How can they be guiltie of that which they haue not receiued And agayne by the vnworthy receiuing of no other sacrament is a man made guiltie of the body and blood of Christ but onely here Ergo the wicked are partakers of his body Rhemist annot 1. Corint 11. sect 16. Answere 1. The wicked may be guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ in vnworthy receiuing the sacrament though Christ be not corporally present Euen as he that contumeliously receiueth the seale of the prince or abuseth his image is guiltie of the Maiestie of the prince though he haue not hurt his person 2. He also may bee guiltie of the blood of Christ that despiseth Baptisme which he receiued as a signe of his washing in the blood of Christ. And so the Apostle sayth of wicked men that fall away from Christian religion that they crucifie agayne to themselues the Sonne of God Heb. 6.6 Augustine also bringeth in Christ thus speaking to the wicked in the day of iudgement Grauior apud me est peccatorum tuorum crux in qua inuitus pendeo quà m illa in quam tuimisertus ascendi the crosse of thy sinnes whereby thou didst crucifie me was more grieuous vnto me then the Crosse to the which for thy cause I was lifted vp Serm. 181. cap. 7. de tempor Thus we see that wicked men by their sinfull life may crucifie Christ though they can offer no violence to his body The Protestants THat wicked men and Infidels cannot in any sense be partakers of the true bodie and blood of Christ thus it is prooued Argum. 1. By faith only are
and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouthes we trust in God wee shall neuer haue occasion to knowe it againe But howsoeuer it is this name Missa Masse cannot signifie any such thing as they pretend 1 For it seemeth that Missa was deriued à dimissione populi of the dimission or sending away of the people and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray or sing Psalmes or for any other religious duetie As yet to this day in the Dutch language Messe signifieth any solemne frequencie or congregation of the people In this sense Cassianus vnderstandeth Masse that is for the dimission of the people speaking of him that commeth not timelie to the howers of praier hee would not haue him to enter in but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere hee ought standing without the doores to waite for the misse of the congregation 2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the leiturgie or seruice of the Church as serm de tempore 251. if that SermoÌ„ be Augustines Sunt aliqui maximè potentes huius mundi cum veniunt ad ecclesiam non sunt deuoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas sed cogunt presbyteruÌ„ vt abbreuiet Missam there are some and commonly the great men of the world which come not to Church with any deuotion to sing praises to God but they constraine the presbyter or Minister to make short Masse Here this word Masse signifieth the whole leiturgie as singing of Psalmes and praising God not any sacrifice or oblation for then he would haue said Cogunt sacerdotem not presbyterum They constraine the priest not the Minister Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Masse is of no great antiquitie so neither is the name in that sence THE SECOND PART OF THE sacrifice of the Masse The Papists CHrist they say at his last Supper did offer vp his owne bodie and blood in error 128 sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his father and at the same instant made his Apostles and their successors Priests to offer vp his bodie â—n the Sacrament Concil Tridentin sess 22. cap. 1. And the same bodie which Christ offered vp vpon the crosse is dayly offered vp by the ministerie of the Priests the difference onely is in the manner of offering Concil Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternitie proper act of Christs Priesthood consisteth in the offering sacrificing of the body blood of Christ in the formes of bread wine in the Church Rhem. Heb. 7. sect 8. And we meane alwaies of Priest sacrifice taken in their owne proper signification ibid. sect 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very bodie and blood of Christ offered vp to God by the hands of the Priest in the formes of bread and wine Bellarm. cap. 5. Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech but the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode did consist in sacrificing in the formes of bread and wine Ergo the eternitie of Christs priesthoode standeth in the sacrificing of his bodie and blood in those formes there doth therefore still remaine a proper external sacrifice in the Church Rhemist annot Hebr. 7. sect 8. Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. 1. We confesse that Melchisedech was a type of our Sauiour Christ and that he was a Priest after Melchisedechs order but not in any such respect for offering in bread and wine for the text saith hee brought forth bread and wine he offered it not he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham and those which were with him Genes 14.18 2. He brought forth bread and wine and not the formes onely of bread and wine therefore your sacrifice in the formes onely is not after his order 3. If Melchisedechs bringing forth of bread wine were a sacrifice or oblation and a type of the like sacrifice to continue for euer in the Church it must also haue been a propitiatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes as they say the sacrifice of the Masse is which was thereby signified but there is no propitiatorie sacrifice for remission of sinnes without shedding of blood Hebr. 9.22 Therefore Milchisedechs act being without blood was no such sacrifice and consequently none at all 4. The Apostle to the Hebrues sheweth wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchisedechs order Heb. 7. First in that Melchisedech was both king Priest verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly in respect of the eternitie of his Priesthoode we doe not reade either of the beginning of his dayes or end of his life nor of any change of his priesthoode vers 3. Al which is most truely verified in Christ. Thirdly Melchisedech was a type of Christ and his Priesthoode of Christs because of the excellencie thereof aboue the Leuiticall Priesthoode for Leui paide tithes in Abraham to Melchisedech and therefore was inferior and was blessed of Melchisedech in Abraham the lesse of the greater so is the Priesthoode of Christ aduaunced farre aboue Aarons order If in any other materiall point Melchisedechs Priesthoode had resembled Christs as in this oblation of bread and wine the Apostle would not haue omitted it 5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode for the which he receiued tithes of Abraham but as the Apostle saith he receiued tithes and blessed Abraham Heb. 7.6 Ergo the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered but for his blessing The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthoode Argum. 2. They alleage that place Heb. 8.3 Euery high Priest is appointed to offer giftes and hostes wherefore it is necessarie that he also haue somewhat to offer Christ then hath a certaine host in externall and proper manner as other Priests haue but this visible and externall act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heauen therefore it must needes bee meant of the perpetuall oblation of his body and blood in the Church for somewhat he must alwaies haue to offer Rhemist Hebr. 8. sect 3. Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not that it is necessarie that Christ should still haue somewhat to offer in sacrifice but that it was needefull for him to haue somewhat which he had alreadie offered for the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the present tence but the time past whereby is vnderstoode the oblation which hee had already offered once and which neede not bee repeated Hebr. 7.27 For as herein hee is like to other Priests that hee must haue somewhat to haue offered so is he vnlike also in this that they by reason of their infirmitie had need to offer often but Christ our high Priest did it but once as in that place the Apostle sheweth 2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ was his bodie which hee calleth the true Tabernacle which the Lord pight and not man But that bodie of Christ which they say is offered vp in the sacrifice of the
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
would haue promised health by calling for the Elders if the gift had not beene generall in euery congregation Ans. 2. Neither is remission of sinnes annexed to the element but to the generall doctrine of prayer made in fayth The prayer of fayth saith the Apostle shall heale the sicke The Protestants EXtreme Vnction is no conuenient ceremonie at all to be vsed in the Church as tending to superstition and breeding a vayne confidence in terrene elements much lesse is it to be holden for a sacrament Argum. 1. It hath no institution from Christ For they themselues confesse that Mark 6.13 there is but a preparatiue to the sacrament of extreme Vnction Rhemist the promulgation and publishing thereof is set forth by the Apostle Iam. 5. But this is not to be admitted that Christ was a preparer of sacraments onely and that they were perfited and finished by his Apostles Nay they were not to adde any thing to the institution of sacraments but to take them as Christ deliuered them 1. Cor. 11.23 Agayne the place in Iames maketh nothing for their popish aneeling for the Apostle would haue al the Elders called but one priest is sufficient to bring your oyntment box Secondly if any man be sick sayth Saint Iames though it be not deadly or mortall sicknes but whensoeuer he is sicke But your Vnction is neuer ministred before the poynt of death Thirdly here health is certainely promised But not one amongst tenne recouereth after your popish aneeling Argum. 2. Christ vsed sometime clay and spittle sometime other elements in healing the diseased as the Apostles vsed oyle why I pray you then may not they be sacraments as well as this For they were signes of healing but for a time no more was the anoynting with oyle Augustine sayth De latere Christi in cruce sacramenta ecclesiae profluxerunt The sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side vpon the Crosse There gushed out â—â—is side water and blood but wee reade not that any oyle was shedde from 〈◊〉 therefore by Augustines argument Vnction is no sacrament THE SECOND PART OF THE effect and vertue of extreme Vnction The Papists error 53 FIrst it giueth health of body Secondly it wipeth away the reliques of sinne And therefore the priest thus sayth Per istam sanctam Vnctionem suam pijssimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid deliquisti per visum c. By the vertue of this holy oyntment and the most merciful fauour of God the Lord forgiue thee what thou hast offended by thy sight hearing c. Bellarm. cap. 7.8 The Protestants 1 YOur popish aneeling is not able to heale the bodie as wee see by daylie experience for more die then liue after your anoynting And they that doe recouer should doe as well without your aneeling Wherefore this anoynting of oyle is not like to that vsed by the Apostles for then health certainly followed Iam. 5.14 2 It is also a great blasphemie to ascribe remission of sinnes to a terrene and beggerly element The Apostle saith not the oyle but the Prayer of fayth shall saue the sicke The scripture also testifieth that the Iust shall liue by fayth Rom. 1.17 And we walke by faith not by sight 2. Corinth 5.7 But he that ascribeth remission of sinnes to oyle or any other externall element walketh by sight not by fayth THE THIRD PART OF THE MINISTER of extreme Vnction and the ceremonies The Papists FIrst they giue power only vnto their anoynted Masse priests to aneele the sicke with oyle Lay men haue no authoritie to doe it nor whosoeuer are error 54 no Priests Concil Trident. sess 14. can 4. Secondly for the rite and ceremonie the Priest comming to the sicke must anoynt his fiue senses his eyes eares nostrels mouth and hands also the reines which is the seate of concupiscence and his feete which are the instruments of execution Bellarmin cap. 10. The Protestants 1 THis anoynting which Saint Iames speaketh of was done by the whole company of Elders in euery congregation which were not all the Pastors of the Church Yea and it appeareth by their own Canons Innocent 1. Epist. 1. cap. 8. that it was lawfull for lay men and all Christians to vse this anoynting see Fulk annot Iam. 5. sect 5. 2 What neede the body be anoynted in so many places It is meere superstition of the like minde was Peter sometime when he sayd to Christ who would wash his feete Lord not my feete onely but my hands and my head To whom Christ answered He that is washed neede not saue to wash his feete but is cleane all Iohn 13.9 Where although the words of Christ haue a spirituall meaning yet we see the euident and playne practise of them in Baptisme In the which sacrament we doubt not but that infants are thorougly baptized though euery part be not touched with water And euen so if your aneeling were a sacrament why might it not suffice in some one part of the bodie to be anoynted and not in so many This we are sure of that nowe you speake without booke For the Apostle maketh no mention of anoynting eyes hands or mouth but onely generally of anoynting the sick And thus it appeareth that your extreme Vnction is no sacrament nor any of the other foure which you haue inuented THE CONCLVSION OF THIS treatise concerning the sacrament THus I trust we haue made it pliane by scripture and euidence of argument that there are but two sacraments onely Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord left and enioyned to the people of God by our Sauiour Christ for foure things are required to make a sacrament First the authority of Christ in commanding it Secondly the element or external signe as the matter Thirdly the word of institution as the forme Fourthly the end and vse to be a seale of our fayth for remission of sinnes 1 Concerning the efficient cause we finde that two sacraments onely in the new testament are commanded by Christ to be vsed for euer in the Church Baptisme and the Lords Supper which both by his owne example and presence as also his precept and commandement were established 2 There must be an outward visible elementall signe as is water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper But so is there not in the fiue popish sacrameÌ„ts For in some there is no signe at all as in Matrimonie where they are driuen to say that the parties that are maried are the signes In some there is a signe but not visible as in absolution the audible voyce of the priest ponouncing the words of absolution is they say the outward signe But in all the sacraments of Christs institution we finde a visible signe In some there is an outward signe but it is an action or gesture only no material element which is not sufficient so is the imposition of hands in giuing of Orders In some there is a materiall signe as Chrisme in Confirmation oyle in extreme Vnction
the holy and blessed babe in the constitution both of bodie and soule excelled the common condition of all other infants for as he was voyd of originall sinne so he was without the effects and fruites thereof which doe shewe themselues in children for neither suffered he the like pangs and infirmities in bodie being in his infancie as other children doe that are vexed and tormented in bodie neither was he subiect to the vnreasonable and brutish motions of the minde which are in children Therefore Augustine sayth Hanc ignorantiam animi infirmitatem quam videmus in paruulis nullo modo fuerim in Christo paruulo suspicatus This kind of ignorance and infirmitie of minde which is in children I cannot thinke to haue been in the babe Christ. And what ignorance and infirmitie he meaneth afterward he expresseth Cum motibus irrationabilibus perturbantur nulla ratione nullo imperio cohibentur When their brutish and vnreasonable motions come vpon them they are ruled neither by reason nor any other gouernment These infirmities both in bodie and soule wee denye to haue been in Christ and yet we doubt not to conclude that as Christ grewe in stature of bodie as Augustine sayth Mutationes aetatum perpeti voluit ab ipsa exorsus infantia He passed through the ages of mans life beginning with his infancie so likewise as the scripture sayth he increased in wisedome Luk. 2.52 AN APPENDIX OF THE MANNER of Christs birth The Papists THey say Christ came out of his mothers wombe the clausure not stirred as error 99 he passed thorow the doores when he came in to his disciples the doores being shut Iohn 20.19 and as he passed thorow the stone arising out of the Sepulchre Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 2. Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 9. The Protestants 1. IT can neuer be proued that Christs bodie came either thorowe the wood of the doores or thorowe the stone of the Sepulchre or clausure of his mothers wombe And concerning the last the scripture is euident to the contrarie where it is sayd that our Sauiour Christ was presented to the Lord according as it is written Euery male that first openeth the matrix c. Luk. 2.29 2. We graunt that both the birth of Christ his rising out of the graue his comming in the doores being shut was strange and miraculous because one substance gaue place to another for a time and after the passing of his bodie the place remained whole and shut as before but not in the very instant of passing The red sea gaue place to the Israelites while they passed and closed together againe so did the prison doores open miraculously to the Apostles Act. 5.19 An incredulous Iewe seeing the eare of Malchus so soone healed would not haue thought that Peters sword went betweene it and his head as we are sure it did So we say concerning the birth of Christ that the place gaue way while he passed and closed vp afterward againe as before Augustine bringeth in Christ thus speaking Ego viam meo itineri praeparaui and a little after transitu meo illius non est corrupta virginitas I made a way for my selfe out of the wombe neither by my passage was her virginitie lost Christ had a way out of his mothers wombe but if the clausure had not giuen place there had been no way made Againe he sayth Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be no where then are they not at all But the Papists in saying that Christ went thorow the very substance and corpulence of things doe take away from his bodie his proper place for two substances cannot be in one place and therefore they destroy the nature of his bodie THE THIRD PART WHETHER CHRIST suffered in soule The Papists THey vtterly denie that Christ felt any paine or anguish in soule vpon the error 100 Crosse otherwise then for griefe of his bodily torments but doe charge them with horrible blasphemie that doe so affirme Rhemist Math. 27. sect 3. 1. The scripture doth ascribe the worke of our redemption and reconciliation only to the blood of Christ vpon the Crosse Coloss. 1.20 Ephes. 1.7 Ergo the death of the bodie of Christ without any further anguish in soule was sufficient Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4. cap. 8. Ans. 1. By the blood of Christ vpon the Crosse must needes bee vnderstood all the parts and circumstances of his passion both his sufferings in bodie and soule for if it should be vnderstood properly the blood of Christ onely were sufficient and so his bodie and flesh should be excluded and if the shedding of his blood be taken simply we shal finde that it was no part of his death for his side was pearced whereout issued water and blood after he had yeelded vp the ghost and all the torments of death were past yea after he had vttered these words vpon the Crosse It is finished that is he had payd the full raunsome for mankind Iohn 19. vers 30.34 Wherefore by his blood must be vnderstood by a Synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole all the other paines and torments which he suffered in his flesh Secondly yea and the paines of the soule to are by that speech fitly expressed for the blood of euery creature is the life thereof Genes 9.4 Leuit. 17.14 But the soule is the life of man Ergo not vnproperly by the shedding of Christs blood euen the vexation and at the last the expiration of his soule and so his whole passion both in body and soule is signified Wherefore as in those places alleadged we read the blood of Christ or the blood of the Crosse so otherwhere in more generall termes the Apostles call it The dying of Christ 2. Cor. 4.10 And the suffrings of Christ 1. Pet. 4.13 Argum. 2. If Christ when he cried out vpon the Crosse O God my God why hast thou forsaken me had felt the wrath of God and despaired of his help he should most greeuously haue sinned Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It cannot be that Christ thus cried out for the paine of bodily death for then he had beene of greater infirmitie then many of his seruants that in the midst of extreme torments neuer complained And therefore it must needs be the burthen of the wrath and curse of God that he endured for our sinne that made him so to cry out vpon the crosse 2. Neither doth it follow that Christ vttered those words in despaire but only to shew the great anguish trouble and perturbation of his spirite being vpon the crosse considered now as a meere man his diuine nature and power repressing and hiding it selfe for a time and although in the vexation of his soule he thus cryed out yet he was not altogether left comfortlesse in spirite in that he said My God
my God which wordes must needs declare an inward confideÌ„ce and assured trust in God The Protestants WE holde it was necessary for our redemption that Christ should not onely suffer bodily paines but also feele the very anguish and horror of soule that as by his death we are redeemed both body and soule so he should pay the ransome for both in his body and soule 1. That our Sauiour suffered great anguish in soule the scripture testifieth for before his suffring in his body vpon the crosse being in the garden he saith of himselfe My soule is heauy vnto death at the same time being grieuously troubled he sweat water and blood and last of all hanging vpon the crosse he cryed out By those effectes it is euidently proued that there was a greater feare in him then of the death of the body for many holy Martyrs haue without any shew of such griefe endured horrible torments in the flesh and therefore consequently it followeth that those things proceeded from the griefe of his soule as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 5.7 He offered vp praiers with strong crying and teares to him that was able to saue him from death and was heard in that which he feared If it had beene onely feare of bodily death what need such strong cries with teares And the text is plaine that he was heard that is saued froÌ„ the death which he feared but he was not saued from the bodily death for he died and gaue vp the ghost wherefore it was the great horror of soule that caused him to feare Bellarm. answereth for all this that it was the bodily death which he feared but not of necessitie because he could not otherwise choose but willingly he would abide this brunt also of the feare and sorrow of death Voluit poenam maeroris timoris subire vt redemptio esset copiosae And heerein he exceedeth all other men that haue suffered for they are ridde from feare because God giueth them greater comfort and they regarde not the present torment but Christ willingly and of his owne accord drew himselfe into this agonie of feare Ans. 1. That Christ as he was God had determined and set it downe to dye for the world it is not to be doubted of but that as he was man he had not a desire to escape death as being ignorant of Gods determination it is contrary to the Scriptures which make mention of his earnest praier that he made thrice that the cup might passe Math. 26. Therefore Christ willingly entred not into that agony of feare in his humane desire but as submitting himselfe and his will in obedience to his fathers will 2. He is contrary to him selfe in saying that Christs bodily sufferings were sufficient for our redemption and yet graunteth that Christ vt redemptio esset copiosa That our redemption might be more full would abide also the smart of the feare of death If he feared but the bodily death as he saith yet was he troubled in soule and therefore besides bodily paine he suffered anguish in his soule Argum. 2. Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raised vp saith S. Peter and loosed the sorrowes of death for it was impossible that he should be holden of it Ergo Christ suffered the sorrowes of death and felt the wrath of God which caused those sorrowes The vulgare Latine hath the sorrowe of hell solutis dolorib infernâ— which pincheth the Papists very sore for how could Christ be loosed from the sorrowes of hell if first he had not beene helde of them That which Bellarmine answereth that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others which were to be deliuered is but a poore shift for the text is plaine It was impossible that he that is Christ himselfe should be stil holden of it it is spoken of the holding of Christ and not of any other Argu. 3. The prophet Esay saith He was wounded for our sins and broken for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was vpon him and with his stripes are we healed Esay 53.5 But we could haue no peace with God vnlesse all the punishment due vnto vs for our sinne had beene vndertaken by Christ wherefore seeing we by our sinne had deserued to be punished both in body soule it was necessary that our redeemer should be wounded and broken wholly for vs for how els by his stripes should we wholly be healed Augustine thus reasoneth against Felicianus the Arrian and proueth that Christ tooke not onely humane flesh but an humane soule Si totus homo periâ—â— c. If man wholly were lost saith he he had wholly need of a Sauiour and if he wholly needed a Sauiour Christ by his comming wholly redeemed him therefore Christ tooke vpon him the whole nature of man both body soule for if since the whole man hath sinned Christ onely had taken our flesh the soule of man should still remaine guiltie of punishment haec Augustine cont Felician cap. 13. By the same reason we proue it was necessary that Christ should suffer both in body and soule by the which Augustine inferreth that Christ tooke both body and soule he did assume them both to redeeme both But he redeemed vs not in being borne for vs or walking or preaching heere vpon earth although these were preparations to his sacrifice but by dying and suffering for vs Ergo he suffered both in body soule the punishmeÌ„t due vnto sinners They grauÌ„t that Christ suffered anguish in soule yet not properly in the soule but onely for the bodily death which was no part of the punishmeÌ„t of the soule which consisted in the very sense and feeling of Gods wrath and the torments of hell due vnto mankinde for their sinnes This punishment of the soule ought also necessarily to haue beene vndertaken by Christ being the redeemer both of body and soule THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER CHRIST descended in soule into hell to deliuer the Patriarkes The Papists THey doe beleeue that Christ according to his soule went downe to hell to error 101 deliuer the Patriarkes and all iust men there holden in bondage til his death Rhemist Act. 2. sect 12. Argum. 2. He that ascended is he that descended first into the lowest parts of the earth Ephes. 4.9 that is into hell the which is the lowest place in the earth Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. The earth it selfe is in respect of the world the lowest part so that here one parte of the earth is not to be compared with another but the whole earth in respect of the high heauens hath the name of the lower partes so is it taken Psal. 139. ver 15. Thou hast fashioned me beneath or in the lower partes of the earth But Dauid I trust they will not say was borne in hell because he speaketh of the lower partes of the earth consul Bez. in hunc locum So that by the descending of Christ into the lowest partes of the earth is meant nothing els but the lowest and extreamest degree
we made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ but this fayth the wicked cannot haue The first part is proued out of the Gospell He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall neuer thirst agayne Iohn 4.14 He that shall neuer thirst must beleeue in Christ Iohn 6.35 Ergo he onely that beleeueth doth drinke the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith Nolite parare fances sed cor non quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit doe not prepare your iawes but your heart it is not that which is seene but what is beleeued that nourisheth Ergo Christ must bee receiued by faith therefore Infidels or vnbeleeuers cannot receiue him Argum. 2. Whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood shall haue eternall life Iohn 6.54 But the wicked haue not eternall life Ergo they neither eate nor drinke Christ. Augustine sayth De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem quibusdam ad vitam res verò cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit From the Lords table some doe receiue vnto life some vnto death but the thing whereof it is a sacrament worketh in all to life in none to death whosoeuer are partakers of it But the bodie and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament Ergo whosoeuer receiueth them hath life thereby the wicked then receiue them not THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNING the Popish Masse THis part likewise comprehendeth diuers questions 1 Of the diuers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ. 2 Of the sacrifice of the Masse the name thereof and of the sacrificing priesthood 3 Of the vertue and efficacie which they falsely ascribe to the Masse 4 For whom the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable whether for the quicke and the dead 5. Of priuate Masses 6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Masse 7. Of the ceremonies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse some goe before some are obserued in the celebration thereof 8. Of the forme of the Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon and of the preface to the Canon where we are to shew the foule and heretical blasphemies which in great number are belched out by them in the Masse Of these now in their order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ. The Papists THey are not contented with that one liuely representation of the death of Christ which is exhibited in the Lords Supper but they haue brought in error 126 two more beside that and so make three in all the first say they is simplex repraesentatio a simple and plaine representation of the death of Christ which is done so often as the Sacrament is receiued the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum A liuely and full representation of Christs death which they doe vse yearely to set forth by solemne gestures apparell and other ceremonies vpon Good Friday as it is commonly called before Easter when they doe make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament the third representation is also a sacrifice beside and that is the sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside which is in the solemne receiuing of the Communion at Easter So then first Christs death is shewed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the yeare long as it hangeth in the pixe or when it is carried to house the sicke Catechism Rom. pag. 408. Secondly it is represented once in the yeere by their solemne Pageant vpon good Friday when there is no Sacrament consecrated but an histrionicall expressing by certaine gestures and actions the manner of Christs crucifying Thirdly in the continuall sacrifice of the Masse Christ his death is represented And lastly in the solemne receiuing at Easter for then especially the mysterie of Christ our Paschall lambe is commended to the people to be eaten with all sinceritie in the Sacrament and so doe the Rhemist expound that place of Saint Paul Let vs keepe feast or holy day not with the leauen of malitiousnes 1. Cor. 6.8 literally applying it to the feast of Easter Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants FIrst we are taught by the word of God that by eating the bread and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament not by gazing looking lifting vp turning hanging vp bread in pixes or by any such meanes but onely as we haue saide is the Lords death shewed forth and represented 1. Corinth 11.26 Wee acknowledge therefore one onely Sacramentall representation of Christ and no more in the Lords Supper the sacrifice of the Masse we iudge to bee an abominable idol as afterward shall be shewed Secondly it is a foule absurditie to make any representation of Christs death by bare gestures shewes and actions of the bodie without any Sacrament as they doe in their popish pageants vpon Christs Passion daye for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated Eckius cap. 15. But the Priest by certaine gestures and motions of the bodie in bowing bending casting abroade his armes and such like dooth resemble Christ crucified Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a liuely representation being done without a Sacrament and the other in the Sacrament simplicem repraesentationem but a simple and plaine representation is too great presumption wherein they prefer their owne superstitious deuises before the ordinance of Christ. Thirdly that place of Saint Paul is vnfitly applied to the celebration of Ester Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise Diem festum celebremus non vtique vnam diem sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis veritatis Let vs keepe holy day not one onely day but all our life long in the vnleauened bread of purenes and trueth So then in Augustines iudgement the Apostle had no relation to any certaine time which he would haue kept holy but to the reformation of the whole life THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE sacrifice of the Masse and the Priesthoode thereto belonging THE FIRST PART OF THE name and terme of Masse The Papists error 127 THere are diuerse opinions amongst them concerning the originall of this name Some say it is called Missa the Masse Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mittantur Hugo de S. Victore Others quod Angelus a Deo mittatur quisacrificio assistat Because an angell is sent of God to bee assistant at the Masse Thom. Aquinas 3. part quaest 83. artic 4. Some of the hebrue worde Missath Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation Some ex missis donarijs symbolis of the giftes and offerings sent or put in before the Communion But what beginning soeuer it had they doe now generally take the Masse for that solemne action whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice and offered vp to God Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. The Protestants WE doe not greatly force vpon this name for both the name