that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthily is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord and after eateth and drinketh iudgement vnto himselfe making no difference of the Lordes bodie Out of which place they reason to this effect The wicked or vnworthy receiuers can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord vnlesse they receiue it But they are guiltie of them and receiue iudgement to themselues therby Therefore they receiue the bodie and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true for saint Paul saith it But the first is most false For although the wicked can not be neither are partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ yet because they come not to the sacrament which was instituted of God to offer and assure vs of the heauenly graces with such reuerence as they ought to do and in such sincerity as behoueth them therefore are they accounted and that woorthily to despise the things themselues that are represented by those visible signes And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ they shewed their contempt of the thing signified thereby And therfore S. Ambrose Ambrose saith euen vpon these words Because it is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in mystery S. Hierome Hierome yeeldeth the reason why he is guiltie of the body blood of Christ Because he hath accounted as vile the Sacrament marke his wordes of so great a mysterie Not therefore are they guiltie because they eate Christ but because saith hee they despise the Sacrament of so great a mysterie And Theophilact Theophilact vppon these wordes saieth Hee that receiueth it vnwoorthily shall bee no lesse guiltie of wickednesse than if hee shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see that Theophilact doth compare the vnworthy receiuing of the holie sacrament with the shedding of Christes blood and so maketh them two diuerse things And therefore in his iudgement it is not all one to receiue the Sacrament and to receiue Christ So that by these places it appeareth that the wicked may bee guiltie of the body and blood of Christ which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed vp vnto the faithfull and yet not receiue the body and blood of Christ Yet by the way I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him doeth falsifie his wordes And therefore where the Apostle saith hee that eateth of this bread and drinketh of the Lordes cup vnworthily he saith Hee that eateth the Lordes body Orthod ex pli lib. 7. and drinketh of his blood But it is no great fault in poperie to abvse the Scriptures and to adde to them or take from them as they thinke good Wee see therefore that this cleane meate is for cleane men this holy banquet is for holy guests as they had wont to crie For De benedict patriaâ— ch c. â— as saint Ambrose saith This bread is the foode but of the godlie And why because Our abiding in him Cypr. de coâ—na Domini is our eating of him and our drinking of him is our incorporating into him our seruices being subiected our willes conioyned and our affections vnited to him Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certaine earnestnesse and desire to abide in him Which things to be in the vngodly the Papists will in no wise affirme Many testimonies might be alleaged but with one shift they thinke to answer all The answer of the Papists Christ his body and blood say they may be receiued of the wicked but not the fruit or effect thereof And may Christ be receiued of any and they not to liue by him Confutation of it Can he that is full of all grace and power be at any time as it were robbed of the same God forbid For if they wil speake of his conuersing among the Iewes and of his being among many whilest he was vpon earth that got no good thereby the reason thereof is plaine it was because they receiued him not Ioh. 3.19 20. But to say that any may receiue him and is not partaker of his graces and benefites is most expresly against the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall liue through me They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Sauiour Christ than to say that any can receiue him and yet not be partakers of his heauenly graces So that whilest they take vpon them the defence of the wicked in some sort they set themselues euen wilfully to reproch the holy one of Israel But if it should be granted to them that the wicked may eate Christ how or when wil they agree what shall be done with that body blood of Christ that they so eate For themselues deny that the soules of the wicked are norished by him And that their bodies should by his body be norished is too absurd What then becommeth of his body and blood which they say the wicked receiue To answer this question resolutely and definitiuely they haue not yet agreed they neuer will they neuer can Therefore vntill they can answere directly to such inconueniences as of necessitie follow the doctrine that they teach let vs beleeue that Christ is the foode of the faithfull onely because none other but they do receiue him Let vs not heare them who in the sacraments which should be and are indeede most plaine and easie teach vs wholy to looke for miracles as doe the Papists For Christ is present by miracle and absent by miracle if they say true And so when all learning and scriptures faile then they perswade vs that we must seeke for a wonder and so make them that will giue credite to them in these their grosse deuises the wonders of the world for their folly But enough of this That the Cup ought not to be denied vnto the lay people which thing the Papists do CHAP. 15. THE PROTESTANTS BEcause it is needeful for the nourishment of our bodies to haue not meate onely to satisfie our hunger but drinke also to quench our thirst in And that Christ would represent vnto vs in his Sacrament the perfect nourishment of our souls wherevnto nothing could be added because that nothing should be wanting For this cause did our Sauiour Christ institute his sacrament of these two partes of our nourishment and gaue as well the one of them as the other vnto his Apostles Commanding them also aswel to take drinke of the cup as to eate of the bread And the Church also did practise this more than a thousand yeeres But of late the councel of Constance Anno 1415. Sess 13. did forbid it and commaund the Sacrament to be receiued but in one kinde THE PAPISTS SO that the church of Rome not regarding the expresse commandement of our Sauiour Christ neither the practise of
alleadge M. Bellarmines reasons though not alwayes because he is accounted learned amongest vs and also commeth after others so that he hath seene what others haue and hath taken out of them what he liketh And as in all this treatise my endeuour is to proue I trust with some good effect that the doctrine of the church of Rome is not catholike so that it may the better appeare I haue towards the end set downe an abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis whereby I trust the meanest that seeth it shal be able to iudge how they make an vniust claime to the catholike religion And although I know my own wants and could rather submit my selfe to be a scholer vnto many than a teacher almost of any yet because I know not how my minde giueth me that this manner of writing may do some good especially among the vnlearned that are desirous to be taught I thought my duetie forced me to take this in hand though I want many helpes and meanes that other haue And to whom should this my labour such as it is be due rather than vnto you next after that place where I did sucke as it were my first milke of learning and laid almost the foundation of that knowledge such as it is that God hath indued mee withall By your good liberalitie I confesse my selfe to be the better inabled to do any good be it neuer so little that I can do in the church of God To your Worships therefore I confesse this my trauell to be due as a simple token of my sincere heart which would haue yeelded a better remembrance if my abilitie could haue affoorded it And the rather do I dedicate this Booke vnto your W. Company that you seeing the meaning of bestowing your exhibition which is to bring vp Labourers in Gods haruest teachers in his church to be in some part performed in me who first in Oxford receiued your liberalitie as I doubt not but you haue seene much more plentiful fruit in many other you may the more willingly continue your godly course and not be weary of your wel-doing Accept in good part I pray you this simple gift and if you see in it but my desire to doe good giue glo◠y to God to whose good grace I commit you and yours and my selfe to your good prayers From my house at Ryton in the Bishoprike of Durham Anno 1595. ⧠A necessarie Table of all the principall matters contained in euery chapter of this Booke THAT the Scriptures or word written is onely Gods word and not traditions Chapter 1 That this word is sufficient Chapter 2 The Scripture a sure rule Chapter 3 Scriptures easie Chapter 4 That onely the canonicall bookes of the old and new testament are this written word or Scriptures Chapter 5 What the catholike church is that in the creede is mentioned Chapter 6 That the catholike church mentioned in the articles of our creede is not visible or to be seene Chapter 7 The church here militant vpon the earth may erre Chapter 8 Of the markes of the church or how we may know the true church Chapter 9 What a sacrament is what is the effect of it or what it worketh how many sacraments there are Chapter 10 Of the sacrament of Baptisme Chapter 11 Of Confirmation Chapter 12 Of the Lords supper and Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and namely of transubstantiation Chapter 13 That the wicked receiue not in the sacrament Christs body and bloud Chapter 14 That the cup ought not to be denied to the lay people which thing the papists do Chapter 15 Against their sacrifice of the Masse or of the altar as they call it Chapter 16 Of true and christian repentance and of the Popish Sacrament of penance Chapter 17 Of lawfull calling into the ministerie and against the sacrament of Orders as they call it Chapter 18 Of matrimony that it is not a sacrament and that it is lawfull for all Chapter 19 Of anoiling or extreme vnction that it is not a sacrament Chapter 20 Of originall sin what it is and whether concupiscence be sin or not Chapter 21 Of the works of infidels and such as are not regenerate Chapter 22 Of Baptisme whether it doe extinguish and kill in vs originall sinne or not Chapter 23 That we haue not of our selues free wil or power to deliuer our selues from sinne Chapter 24 That by our workes we cannot bee iustified and against the doctrine of merites Chapter 25 Of iustification by faith and what faith is Chapter 26 That good works are necessary duties for all christians to perfourme Chapter 27 Of prayer to whome and how we should pray Chapter 28 Against Images in churches or anie where else for religions cause Chapter 29 What fasting is and of the true vse of fasting Chapter 30 Of Purgatorie Chapter 31 An Abridgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis with obseruations vpon the said Author Chapter 32 An exhortation to christian magistrates for to defend this truth Chapter 33 FINIS That the Scriptures or written word is onely Gods Word and not traditions CHAP. 1 THE PROTESTANTS The rule of faith life BEcause it is confessed of al that gods worde must bee the rule and square of our faith and life of our religion and conuersation It is very meete that first wee enquire what is this word of God And wee affirme What is gods word that that onelie which is contained in the Bookes of the old and new Testament is the very true word of God First bicause we are so often earnestly charged not to adde any thing to it or to take any thing from it Secondly this is prooued by the practise of the godlie of all times The Iewes most religiously kept the word written with great sinceritie and made it the Touchstone to try their actions by and by it they reformed such things as were amisse in religion especially As in Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias and others it may appeare Christ also and his Apostles confirmed that which they taught out of the Scriptures yea they confirmed and expounded the Lawe Mat. 5. and preached no other gospell thā that which before was promised by the Prophets Rom. 1.2 And accounted them accursed that shoulde preach any other Gal. 1.6 7 8 9. Lastly the Fathers of the purer times of the Church did not only with open mouth submit their writings and doctrines to the iudgement of the Scriptures but also they tried doubts established all trueths and confuted all heresies onely by this word written THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of ROME not suffering herself to be hemmed in within so narow lists Prou. 22.28 hath remoued the ancient bounds which their fathers made and faineth that God who hath hitherto had but one voice now in our dayes shoulde speake with two tongues What is gods word in the Ro. church For they make Gods word to consist of two partes namely of the word written which we
the Apostles Nowe what commaundement hath it which is the thirde thing that is set downe by Bellarmine De effect sacram lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 2. cap. 2 de sacram confirm without which a Sacrament cannot be Bellarmine flatly confesseth that it hath no expresse commaundement in the scripture but in stead of a commaundement he deliuereth vs the execution or practise of it for so himselfe saieth Why then I may thus reason A sacrament must haue a promise of grace a visible or sensible signe and a commaundement from God or else it cannot be a sacrament as Bellarmine confesseth but confirmation hath neither promise of grace nor visible signe nor commaundement from God therefore it is no sacrament Their arguments out of the fathers make a greater shew It is well yet that they cannot presse vs but with the authoritie of men Notwithstanding this may be briefly said for their authorities from the fathers that either they are such as haue no writings extant but onely such scraps as they for their owne purpose haue gathered togither and therefore are witnesses of vs worthily suspected or such as haue no sound credite of any indifferent man or lastly such as make nothing for them or against vs in this questiō For the Papists will haue their Confirmation to bee a sacrament the matter whereof must bee Oyle and Balme but neither doe the most learned fathers make mention of the Balme neither are the Schoole-men agreed amongest themselues that it is needful for this sacrament Lib. 2. de sacram Confirm cap. 9 as Bellarmine confesseth Yea they thinke it absurde that a sacrament should be appointed by our sauiour Christ the matter whereof should bee so rare to finde so vncertaine whether we haue the true thing or not and so costly as hardly it can bee gotten and it is doubted of some whether there be nowe any true Baulme or not And this their sacrament is built vpon so vncertaine foundations that Alexander Alensis and Bonauenture two olde pillars of Poperie cannot find that it was instituted before the counsell at Melda Out of all which it is easie to vnderstande that as this Confirmation hath not in Gods worde any shew of warrant to make it a sacrament so neither out of the fathers can anie certaine argument be gathered for the same But such are all heretikes Iren. lib. 5 and such as imagine they can find out somwhat beside the truth following those things that are spoken diuersly and in sundrie sorts and walking weakly not being alwayes of one minde are led about like blind men by blinde guides they shall and that worthily fall into the hidden pit of ignorance euer seeking the truth but neuer finding it Which iudgement of God here mentioned against the heretikes we see to be fallen vpon the Papists who had rather wander in such vncertaine and blinde wayes than be ruled by the infallible word of God Of the Lordes Supper or Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and namely of Transubstantiation CHAP. 13 THE PROTESTANTS WE teach that by those visible signs of bread and wine the bodie and blood of our sauior Christ is so liuely and effectually represented and offered vnto our faith that the faithfull receiuers in the same Supper doe as truly receyue by faith Christ himselfe with all his treasures and graces to the comfort and foode of their soules as they receiue the bread and wine with their mouth to the nourishment of their bodies And that this our spirituall nourishment maye bee the more liuely represented the substance of the bread wine must needs remaine for our bodilie nourishment as in Baptisme likewise the water remaineth vnchanged to signifie our spirituall washing So that as we chāge not the substance of these creatures without which they cannot bee a Sacrament so we teach Christ to be receiued spiritually and therefore most truly of the faithfull receiuer THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome not content with this spirituall and true receiuing of Christ do teach that by the wordes of consecration as they cal them the very bread and wine haue their substance chaunged into the bodie and bloud of Christ So that Christ whome in the Creed we confesse to be ascended into heauen and that he shall come from heauen to iudge the quick and the dead is by that means brought into euery Pix which ouerthroweth the nature of man which hee tooke of the Virgin Marie for man can bee but in one place Wherby also there follow such inconueniences that it is with them a great question whether the Mouse that eateth the host Hom. par 3 quaest 80 artic 3. do eate Christes bodie or not some affirme it and some answer to say shee doth Glos dist 2 de consec cap. Qui bene Durand ra◠diu lib. 4 rubr 41. is not greatly absurd because the most wicked men doe eate it Others say that it miraculously ceaseth to bee Christes bodie But seeing the first miracle is wrought by the words I pray you howe hath the Mouse wrought this second miracle in making it cease to be Christs bodie and said nothing Seeing this doctrine of Transubstantiation doth bring with it so grosse or rather so monstrous absurdities a man would thinke that no Christian would stand in defence of the same For how can we not abhorre such teachers as indeuour to make vs beleeue that the most wicked persons may eate the flesh of Christ Iohn 6. Which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer as our Sauiour Christ doth often tell vs. And yet to defend their Transubstantiation Bel. de euch lib. 3. ca. 9. they defend this as a good and fruitfull opinion Who will folow such guides as lead vs into such marishes as themselues know no way to get out Such is the question which before I touched whether the Mouse doe eate the bodie of Christ if he eate the host A question not mooued by vs as Bellarmine would seeme to make men beleeue De Ecuhar lib. 3. cap. 14. and therefore would make vs like the Iewes Pagans and Heritikes but moued and disputed by themselues as may appeare by the master of Sentences lib. 4. dist 13 in dist 2. de consecrat cap Qui bene and also in the place before alledged out of Durand Yea Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alledged For first hee setteth downe flatly That although Christ be truly in the Sacramēt yet can he not be hurt and therefore not eaten with Mice but the formes onely of bread may be eaten The absurditie hereof I will not stand vpon in this place But Bellarmine will shewe vs this by a demonstration The Diuinitie sayeth hee is euerie where yet not cōsumed by fire nor defiled by filth Is this good diuinity to make the body of Christ not subiect to corruption because the godhead is not Glorified it is and therfore not corruptible but
wordes must not be taken that teacheth transubstantiation Thirdly the circumstances of the place it selfe are flat against this doctrine of transubstantiation For if any thing els had bin signified by the worde This then that which Christ tooke and brake that is the bread it could not but verie much haue astonished them that were present that speaking as it were of the bread hee should haue meant any thing else But to haue taught that it had beene his very naturall bodie indeede it would haue made them much more wonder than they did â—â—â— e sixt of Saint Iohns Gospel when they sayd Ioh. 6 6â— This is a hard saying who can heare it For if they could not abide to heare our Sauiour Christ say they must eate his flesh and drinke his blood howe much lesse woulde they not onely haue heard this saide againe but also seeing him sit at the Table and hauing taken bread into his hand to pronounce that that bread was his naturall bodie that was borne of the Virgine Marie and that they must so eate him But they knew that about Sacraments sacramentall speaches are to be vsed And neuer imagined that because he said This is my body therefore that bread should bee chaunged in substaunce to the bodie of Christ no more than there should be an alteration in Christ because he sayth I am the doore I am the vine yea no more than the cup it selfe was changed in the words of consecration into another thing They knew that it is not such a kinde of speach as is vsed when God is purposed to make any thing Gen. 1. Let there be light let there be a firmament It is not a speach of coÌ„manding but of shewing or declaring when he sayth This is my body And therefore they made no such doubts they did not so much as aske any question how it could bee that he whose bodie they saw sitting with them at the table could haue also an other bodie though inuisible yet a verie true and naturall bodie hidden in those formes of bread And as the Apostles did neuer imagine so grosly of Christ and so absurdly that he had two bodies the one visible the other inuisible the one sitting at the table the other lurking in the formes of bread but did eate that which Christ tooke brake and gaue to them that is to say bread so Saint Paule doeth flatly call it bread 1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14. yea and that after the words of consecration And although Bellarmine would seeme to answere this argument and indeed iustly cyteth the answere which is commonly made to it that it is called bread not because it is so nowe but because it was so for sayeth hee it is not needfull that if sometime that be vsed yet that should bee vsed alwayes yet neither will the answere that hee best liketh of serue the turne For sayeth hee it is called bread according to the Hebrew phrase which calleth all meate by the name of bread Now to strike him with his owne weapon if it bee so sometimes must it so signifie alwayes I am sure maister Bellarmine will not so say for then shall wee doubt what it was that our Sauiour Christ tooke for the institution of the Sacrament And if he dare not say that so it must bee alwayes then must hee giue better reason why heere it should not bee so or else wee cannot beleeue him Especially seeing the Apostle immediately before speaking of the institution of the Sacrament hath shewed howe our Sauiour Christ tooke bread which I trust maister Bellarmine will there confesse to bee bread in deed and not other foode why should hee then without proofe or reason say here it is more generally taken to applie it perchaunce to the foode of the soule Yea this replie may serue for all the answeres that hee hath to this argument because it is not inough for him to say such a worde may so bee taken sometime but hee must prooue that it must in this place so be taken Moreouer if you consider of that which they call the forme of bread it is no other in colour taste or fashion than it was it putrifieth and corrupteth as soone as when it is not consecrated Which to affirme if it were transubstantiated into the bodie of Christ were in my mind absurd and blasphemous Lastly we see by the practise that the godly haue sometime vsed that the fathers in the primitiue Church thought not the bread to be transubstantiated For if they had knowne of any transubstantiation they woulde not haue burned that which remained of the Eucharist as Hesichius Hesich in leuit Ori. in Leuit. and also Origen vpon Leuiticus shew that they did Thus then by many reasons I trust it sufficiently appeareth that the church of Rome cannot without great violence done to the place wring traÌ„substantiation out of these words this is my body In Ioh. tract 47. for Christ is many things by similitude which he is not in deed a rocke a doore c. as saith S. August And so we may see the words to be most easie and plaine if according to the maner of such sacramentall speaches we vnderstand the worde Is. 1. Cor. 10.2 The rocke was Christ that is it was a figure of Christ so here This is my body that is the figure of my bodie Cont. Adimant c. 12. as S August most plainly expouÌ„deth in this place saying The lord made no doubt to say this is my body when he gaue the figure of his bodie And thus much to take froÌ„ them that one weapon which they haue wrested froÌ„ the scriptures to fight against vs wtal Now the which they can bring against vs out of the writings of men can haue no such force and therfore is not so dangerous Answer to the places out of the fathers for transubstantiation Inst Apol. 2 neer the end And yet it will not be amisse to take a short viewe of that which they alledge out of the Fathers of the purer ages namely that liued fiue hundred or sixe hundred yeares after Christ Iustinus Martyr is the first whom he nameth out of whom he gathereth That the meate whereof our flesh is nourished that is the bread sanctified by the prayer of the worde of God is the bodie of the Lorde Wherein I note first that because hee speaketh of meate wherof our flesh is nourished he acknowledgeth no change of the substance of the bread for it must be the substance of the bread that nourisheth our bodies no change I say but Sacramentall in regard whereof he hath said a little before that we receiue it not as common bread because that being so sanctified it is a Sacrament of the bodie of our sauior Christ TheÌ„ the substance of the bread being proued euen by these words to remaine it is nothing hard to see what he meaneth when he sayth it is the bodie of the Lord. For it
thou see wine doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe God forbid Thinke not so For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing aboundeth euen so heere thinke the mysteries to bee consumed by the substance of the body In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish transubstantiation For although they doe teach that the substance of the bread is perished yet the accidentes they teach still to remaine and euer they say that Christ is present in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine But when waxe is cast into the fire there is not so much as a shew that there hath beene waxe but all is consumed Therefore this similitude maketh not for transubstantiation And in trueth whosoeuer shall reade that whole sermon shall easily perceiue that Chrysost there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the people so to be affected when they come vnto the holy sacrament that their eie shoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures but their minde altogetherr exercised in heauenly cogitations according saith he vnto the promise that you made vnto the Priest when as hee saide Lift vp your mindes and hearts and you answered I haue it lifted vp vnto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vnto vs in an other place that especially in these holie mysteries Chrysost in Math. hom 83 wee shoulde not onely beholde that which is before our eyes but especially remember his wordes But it were too tedious to answere euery place particularly that they doe alleadge and out of this which is already spoken it is easie to answere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or sixe hundred yeares But if any man wil aske why our sauiour Christ doth giue vnto the bread the name of his Bodie and to the wine the name of his Blood And why the fathers doe so call these outward signes the bodie and blood of our sauiour Christ I will answere with Theodoret an ancient father Dial. 1. Immutabilâ—â— Hee would haue them that are partakers of the diuine mysteries not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are seene but in respect of the change of the name to beleeue the change that is made through grace As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the first of them was more than a thousand yeeres after Christ whereby it may appeare how late this doctrine is whereupon Scotus a schooleman doeth confesse that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith before the councel of Lateran although Bellarmine reproue him for it Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it so many absurdities is darkened with so many doubtes hath no warrant in the Scriptures no ground in the ancient fathers and is not to be accounted as an article of faith euen by the confession of them that speake of the greatest antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares since let vs take heed of them who crie continually Antiquitie Antiquitie and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuises of their owne and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true ancient faith deliuered by Christ and his apostles and sincerely preserued many hundred yeeres in the church of God But of this because it is one of the speciall points of doctrine wherein we dissent I haue stoode longer That the wicked receiue not in the Sacrament Christs bodie and blood CHAP. 14 THE PROTESTANTS BEcause that whosoeuer hath eaten the sonne hath the sonne for hee is meate that perisheth not Ioh. 6.50 and he that hath the sonne hath life 1. Ioh. 5.22 And on the contrary De ciuit Dei lib. 21. ca. 25 De consecra dist 2. vt quid paras ex Augustino as saint Augustine saith He can not eate Christs body that is not in his body Lastly seeing he can not be torn with the teeth but must be receiued by faith wee therefore teach that although the wicked may be partakers of the visible signes yet they can not be said to eate or receiue the body and blood of our sauiour Christ And with Saint Augustine In Ioh. tract 59 that they may eate as Iudas did the Lords bread against the Lord but the bread the Lorde they can not eate which doctrine is most plaine and bringeth with it no absurdities or doubts THE PAPISTS BVt the Church of Rome Iren. lib. 4 cap. 34. forgetting that the Sacrament consisteth of twoo things that is to say the materiall breade and that which came down from heauen which is Christ do adde vnto these a third namely Bellarm. de Euchar. li. 1 cap. 23 the effect of the body of Christ or his spirituall graces making thereby a separation and as it were a diuorce betweene the bodie of Christ which they teach the wicked may receiue and those graces which can not in deede bee separated from the same and cannot be giuen to the vngodly Whereby they do wrap themselues in such a cloud of doubts as all the Papists in the world wil neuer be able to answer M. Bilsoâ— part 4. whilest some say that this body goeth no further than to the teeth some allowe it to haue passage but to the stomake but not to abide there some to continue there also yea some say that it goeth as other meate into the belly yet remaineth stil Christs body so long as the forme of the bread remaineth yea and that it may be voided either vpward or downward and receiued of man or beast Although this vnreconcileable difference that is among them in so materiall a point of their religion namely what is becom of the body of Christ after the wicked haue receiued the same and these filthy blasphemies and detestable shifts that they are driuen vnto for defence of their heresie be a sufficient confutation both of that doctrine of transubstantiation from whence doe spring all these filthie pudles and sinckes and also of this other that the wicked may eate the body of Christ which is but a sowre grape of that vnkindely roote yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant I will by Gods assistance take a short view of their arguments whereby they indeuour to proue that the most wicked men may eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ Now their chiefe and almost onely proofe is taken from transubstantiation of the vntrueth of which doctrine I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the former chapter And now therefore that I may conclude that if the wicked can not eate the body of Christ vnlesse the bread be changed into the bodie as themselues will confesse then because there is no such change therefore the wicked eate not his body But one shew of an argument they make out of the scriptures 1. Cor. 11.27 29 He
Tertullian did not so much as dreame of any incense there and it is so placed that it must needes expound how he vnderstandeth that cleane sacrifice spoken of by Malachie The next commeth in Cyprian who saieth That the olde sacrifice is abolished and the new celebrated and then sayeth Bellarmine he citeth this place of Malachie Ad Quirin lib. 1. ca. 16 Esay 1.11.12 Psa 50.14.15 23 It is true but first he citeth Esay and the 13. verse of the 50. Psalme or as he doeth recken it of the 49. for reiecting of their externall sacrifices and then out of the same Psalme hee teacheth that prayer and prayse are the true sacrifices and also out of the 4. Psalme Psal 4.6 hee speaketh of the sacrifice of righteousnesse And then followeth that of Malachie whereby it is most manifest that Cyprian vnderstandeth by the sacrifice mentioned in Malachie no other than that which out of the Psalmes he learned And in all these places Bellarmines euill dealing is notorious For hee will not so much as see the wordes that are before his eyes but onely picketh out that which hee thinketh serueth for the establishing of his errour and concealeth that which would giue light to the trueth And it were too tedious to answere to euerie testimonie especially seeing that which hath beene saide of the places before alledged doth sufficiently testifie what was the iudgement of the auncient fathers concerning this place of Malachie nowe in question I will therefore returne to his generall arguments Argument 5 Maister Bellarmine his fift principall argument Ioh. 4.21.23 is taken out of saint Iohn where he sheweth that the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth but this worship must needes be saieth he the offering of sacrifices propely so called Therefore the true worshippers in the daies of Christ shall offer these sacrifices properly so called In Iohn Hom. 32 But Chrysost vpon that place can find no such sacrifices but expoundeth this place by the 12. to the Romans of our spirituall sacrifices with whom also Theoph. seemeth to agree In. Iohn Tract 15. And S. August thinketh not that this kind of worshipping needeth to be performed in any materiall temple but that our selues are Gods temple yea and that his holy temple and therefore that this worship must bee in our selues therefore spirituall Hitherto haue we heard some reasons to proue in the Eucharist that there is a sacrifice properly so called gathered partly of the figures of the old law of the which I may truly complaine De vnit Eccl cap. 19. as S. August did of the Donatists You stay saith he vpon those dark points least you should be forced to grant that which is plaine or else forced out of some other doubtfull sentences whereof also with the same father against the same heretikes I may say Alledge something that needeth no interpreter Cap. 16 that cannot be prooued to be spoken of some other thing and you indeuour to draw it to your owne meaning And therefore out of such vncertaine allegations a certaine conclusion cannot be gathered But now let vs see what is alledged out of the verie institution it selfe for if any thing worth hearing can bee brought out of it it must needs be forcible Therefore thus he reasoneth Argument 6 Bel. de missa li 1 ca. 12. Christ in his last supper offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread wine to God the father and commaunded that to be done of the Apostles and their successors to the end of the world But this is to offer a sacrifice properly and truly so called and to institute that it should be offered Therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice properly so called For the maior in this argument wherof all the doubt is it is a plain fallacie for he beggeth to haue that confessed that is denied to haue that granted that is in question For if he could proue that Christ did offer himselfe in his last supper to God the father we would easily confesse it to be a sacrifice true and proper So that on the contrary I may as well reason thus Christ cōmanded nothing to be don but that which himself did in his last supper but himselfe did not sacrifice and therfore he commaunded no sacrifice in the last supper Wel his first proof of this vntrue proposition is that which he hath said of Melchisedech the paschal Lambe the blood of the couenant of which I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the iudgement of any indifferēt man in my answer to his 3. first principall arguments Luke 22.19 20 1 Cor. 11.24 His second reason is this These words Is giuen is broken is shed which are words of the present time do signifie that he was giuen broken shed vnto god for a sacrifice M. Bellar. seemeth to me to be hopshakled that he cānot wel step forward He hath taken vpō him to proue out of these words that christ offred his body in his supper to his father for a sacrifice how doth he proue it because the words shew that he is giuen broken and shed for a sacrifice to God is not this a good leape thinke you And yet his proposition that he should prooue and his reason whereby hee doeth it are all one But if hee stand vpon these wordes Is giuen broken and shedde therefore it is an act that then was done and therefore done in the Supper what will hee say to their owne translation which translateth Shall bee shed in Matthew and Marke and Luke also and also of the bread This is my bodie which shal be giuen for you It seemeth when that translation was first set foorth that peece of scripture was not so taken as it is now but that those words of the supper Math. 26.28 mar 14.24 luk 22.20 1. cor 11.24 were taken for a promise of that which Christ performed the next day as in truth they were I but master Bellarmine telleth vs that al these readings are good because there may be a good reasō of either of them I confesse that to be true and therfore M. Bellarmins reason is not strōg whose force hangeth vpon these wordes onely which may well be translated otherwise But by the way what if I should thus reason A representatiue sacrifice is not a protiatorie sacrifice but Christs sacrifice that in his supper hee offred vnto God was representatiue saieth Bellarm. in this place therefore not propitiatorie and much lesse then is the Masse a propitiatorie sacrifice Neither do I see to what end Christ should represent to God the sheding of his bloud which should be afterwards vpō the crosse although M. Bellar doth say it because he is loth to tell the true reason which I haue alreadie touched why their cōmon Latin translation did not precisely follow the Greeke in translating of these words shal be giuē broken shed His third reason out of the words of the institution to proue his sacrifice