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
QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance
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
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
the Masse is auaileable The Papists error 132 FIrst they affirme that Masse may be fayd and offered for all the liuing yea for Pagans and infidels for men absent as well as present for Saint Paul willeth prayers and supplications to be made for all men 1. Timoth. 2.1 Bellarm. cap. 6. Secondly the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for the dead which are in error 133 Purgatorie Bellarm. cap. 7. Concil Trid. sess 22. can 3. error 134 Thirdly Masse may be rightly sayd in the remembrance and for the honour of Saints with inuocation of them also in the prayers of the Church Bellarm. cap. 8. Argum. The Apostles taught the Church to keepe a memorie or inuocation of the Saints in this sacrifice and that there should be speciall prayers for the dead for these and such like were the things no doubt that S. Paul sayth he would set in order when he came 1. Cor. 11.34 Rhemist ibid. Ans. 1. To the place out of Timothie we haue answered before that it is vnderstood generally of all prayers made by the faithfull neither doth it follow it is lawfull to pray for all men and therefore the Sacrament is auaileable for all men for these are two diuers things prayer is an effect of our faith the Sacrament is an instrumental or ministerial cause of our faith 2. It is too great boldnes for you without scripture to affirme that these superstitious rites of yours were those very orders which the Apostle promised at his comming to establish but either they were such as partained not to the administration of the Sacrament or were but accidentall orders meete for the Church of Corinth and not necessarie for all times and places The Protestants FIrst the Sacrament for sacrifice we acknowledge none is onely ordained for their comfort that doe receiue it neither can one receiue the Sacrament for another no more then he may be baptized in the stead of another Secondly neither doth the celebration of the Sacrament profite the dead as we haue shewed before that it is in vaine to pray for them Thirdly neither are the Saints either then or at any other time to be prayed vnto or either by this or any other religious worship to be honoured Argum. All these superstitious obseruances are cleane contrarie and repugnant to the institution of Christ. First he sayth Take ye eate ye doe this wherefore to their comfort onely the Sacrament worketh that doe receiue it and are doers in that action the benefite thereof then is not extended to the absent but onely to the partakers Secondly the dead can feele no comfort by it because they can neither eate nor drinke it nor be doers therein Thirdly Christ sayth Doe this in remembrance of me he sayth not in remembrance of Angels Apostles Saints but onely of me Therefore it is contrarie to the institution to vse any commemoration of Saints in the Sacrament Augustine sayth Quis offeret sacrificium corporis Christi nisi pro ijs qui sunt membra Christi Who will offer the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ but for the members of Christ Lib. 1. de origin anim cap. 9. Therefore the Sacrament can not be celebrated for Pagans and Infidels who are no members of Christ. Againe he sayth Nos Martyribus non constituimus templa sacerdotia sacra aut sacrificia We doe not erect either temples priests seruice or sacrifices to Martyrs De ciuitat dei lib. 8. cap. 27. Ergo it is not lawfull to vse the Sacrament for the honour of Saints THE FIFT QVESTION OF priuate Masses The Papists IF any man shall say that priuate Masses wherein the Priest alone by himselfe error 135 doth communicate are vnlawful and therefore to be abolished we pronounce him accursed Concil Tridentin sess 22. can 8. Argum. The sacrifices of the law were sacrifices before the people did eate thereof so the substance making of a medicine is one thing the ingredience or taking of it an other Ergo neither is receiuing part of the substāce or making of the sacrifice of Christs bodie but a consequence only therefore there may be a sacrifice and sacrament without it Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 14. Ans. First we denie that there is any sacrifice in the Eucharist but a Sacrament onely and therefore the comparison holdeth not betweene a sacrifice which consisted both of oblation to God and the participation of the people that offered and the Sacrament which Christ in his institution offered not to God but to his Disciples Secondly neither doth the similitude of a medicine conclude for you cannot proue that the Sacrament not receiued hath vertue in it as a medicine hath for faith is requisite to the worthie receiuing of the Sacrament which is not necessarie in the applying of a medicine and yet it is not properly called a medicine vnlesse being made it be also applied and being receiued doth heale The Protestants WE vtterly condemne the superstitious practises of popish priests who doe vse to communicate alone in their Masses the people standing by gazing and looking vpon him yea you might haue seene many Masses sayd in one Church at once almost in euery corner one no person being present for the most part but the priest and his boy Argum. This priuate receiuing of the Sacrament is contrarie to the institution of Christ who sayth speaking to many Take ye eate ye and diuide this amongst you there must be then a diuision and distribution Saint Paul also sayth We that are many are one bread and one bodie in as much as we are partakers of one bread 1. Corinth 10.17 Ergo many must communicate together· For the Apostle speaketh not of the mysticall communion of the faithfull in this place which doe all make but one bodie in Christ for so we doe communicate with the Church by faith not onely in the Sacrament but without it but of the Sacramentall communion of as many as receiue together for how els can they be sayd to be partakers of one bread or loafe vnlesse they receiue together Augustine sayth that Sacramentum benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur That the Sacrament is blessed sanctified and broken to be distributed Ergo where there is distribution there must be many to receiue AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of the Sacrament The Papists THey vtterly mislike these names of the Sacrament that it is called amongst vs the Lords Supper or Communion belike say they they will bring it againe to the Supper or euening seruice Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 6. And the name Communion is as ignorantly vsed of them thereby making the people beleeue that many should communicate together 1. Cor. 11. sect 24. they should rather vse the names of the Eucharist Masse or Leiturgie The Protestants FIrst for the name of the Lords Supper we doe learne of S. Paul so to call it When ye come together sayth he this is not to eate the Lords Supper 1. Corinth 11.20 Rhemist The
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
commendable custome of the Church in ancient time as Augustine writeth thus Exposit. in Psal. 103. part 1. Pauca nos cogit dicere temporis angustia quod nouit charitas vestra debere vos exequijs fidelis corporis solenne obsequium The shortnes of the time causeth me to be briefe and you know that we are to performe a solemne dutie to the bodie of our faithfull brother The sermon seemeth to haue been made at some funerall The Iewes also the buriall being ended did comfort those that mourned and eate and dranke with them and gaue them the cup of consolation Ierem. 16.7 Iohn 11.31 Both which customes may be kept and retained without any superstition But other customes and ceremonies that doe sauour of impietie and doe any way implye prayer or commendation of the soules of the dead ought to be left and abolished 3 Another abuse in popish funerals is their superstitious and often remembrance of the dead for they haue their weekes mind for the dead the seuenth error 18 day nay their halfe weekes mind the third day their moneths mind the thirtith day and beside their anniuersarie or yeeres minde I pray you what neede all this Where doe they finde that wee should mourne for the dead a moneth thirtie dayes together much lesse a whole yeere Ioseph mourned but seuen dayes for his father Genesis 50.10 So did the Gileadites for Saul 1. Samuel 31.13 The Egyptians in deede mourned threescore and tenne daies when Ioseph mourned but seuen that we may see a manifest difference betweene the moderate mourning of the faithful and the excessiue lamentation of infidels But the popish yeeres mindes doe farre exceede the Egyptians stinted mourning there being fiue times 70. daies in a yeere Yet yeerely stipends erected for weekely monethly quarterly or yeerely sermons we mislike not being ordained for the instruction of the people without any relation to the soules of the dead otherwise then to giue God thankes for them and those good things which the Lord wrought by them error 19 4 They doe greatly erre and are deceiued in holding it to be a meritorious worke which is performed in the buriall of the dead alleadging to this purpose that place 2. Sam. 2.5 where Dauid sent messengers to the men of Iabesh Gilead saying Blessed are ye of the Lord that you haue shewed such kindnes vnto your Lord Saul and haue buried him therefore now the Lord shewe mercie and truth vnto you Bellarm. cap. 19. Answere There can be no such conclusion gathered out of these words The Lord will shewe mercie according to his truth and promise to those that are mercifull Ergo it is meritorious to be mercifull for here the reward dependeth of Gods promise and truth not vpon the worthines of the worke Indeed Dauid saith as it followeth in that place I will recompence this benefite because you haue done this thing They might deserue kindnes at the hands of Dauid because one good turne requireth another but before the Lord there is no merite or desert Secondly to burie the dead is a worke of charitie and therefore commanded as all other dueties of charitie are The things then commanded we doe of duetie we are bound to doe them Ergo they are not meritorious So saith our Sauiour Christ Doth the master thanke his seruant for doing that which he was commanded I trow not Luk. 17.9 error 20 5 In their funerals and suffrages for the dead they doe make great difference betweene the rich and the poore for they say it is possible that so many prayers and suffrages may bee made at once for the dead that their soules may at once be deliuered out of Purgatorie Et ideo in hoc solo casu melior est conditio diuitis quà m pauperis quia habet vnde suffragia fiant pro ipso And therefore in this case onely the estate of the rich is better then the poore because he hath wherewithall suffrages should be made that is able to giue great legacies and bequests to that end Albert mag de officio miss tract 3. Againe they haue greater respect vnto the Pope departed then any other for the first day there must be 200. Masses read for his soule and for nine daies after an 100. Masses euery day Tilemann de primat pontif error 86. Ans. Where doe they reade in all the scriptures that the rich in matters of the soule should be preferred before the poore nay the scripture saith plainly that God is no accepter of persons Act. 10.34 And S. Iames saith We ought not to regard a rich man that weareth goodly apparell hauing a gold ring before a poore man in vile apparell 2. vers 2. Where also doe they learne to pray for none but for those for whom they are hired to pray And if praier be a worke of charitie and if by their praiers they can deliuer mens soules out of Purgatorie why doe they not extend their charitie to all in praying for them What if the rich Glutton and poore Lazarus were aliue now or these popish Masse-mongers had liued then would they haue been bought for money to haue prayed for the rich mans soule and let Lazarus alone It is like they would But surely all their Masses should neither haue profited the one nor the want of them haue hindered the other Marke I pray you what Augustine saith Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum purpurato illi diuiti turba exhibuit famulorum sed multò clariores in conspectu domini vlceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum A goodly funerall did the friends and seruants make for the rich man arayed in skarlet in the sight of the world but a more blessed buriall had the poore man in the sight of God by the ministerie of the angels Therefore there is no respect of persons to be had among the dead neither haue the rich any greater priuiledge for the multitude of suffrages then the poore that wanteth them for no doubt the rich mans executors spared for no cost Masses Trentals Diriges they had enough if they were then to be had yet for all this stirre his soule went to Hell and Lazarus soule was by the angels caried to heauen that had none of this geere 6. Lastly if there were no other thing to be misliked in their Funerals this were sufficient to condemne them as abominable that they thinke their singing error 21 chaunting ringing giuing of dole and almes to the poore and all other their superstitious customes doe helpe and profite the dead Bellarm. ibid. Augustine giueth two reasons of this duetie to be shewed in the burying of the dead First Corpori humando quicquid impenditur non est praesidium salutis sed humanitatis officium What duetie is performed in enterring the bodie is an officious worke of humanitie not any reliefe for the health of the soule Secondly sayth he Corpori mortuo sed tamen resurrecturo impensum huiusmodi officium est quodammodo eiusdem
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
Minister SOme things are yeelded vnto of both sides First that no man ought to take vpon him to administer the Sacraments vnlesse he be thereunto lawfully called and ordeined by the Church sauing that they make exception of Baptisme which in case of necessity as they teach may be giuen by the hands of lay men or women but of this matter we shall haue fitter occasion afterward to consider Secondly it is agreed that the efficacy or vertue of the Sacrament dependeth not of the faith or honesty of the Minister but a faithfull man may receiue the sacrament worthily euen at the hands of an vnworthy Minister The Papists THe point of difference betweene vs is this They do teach that the efficacie error 90 perfection and being of the Sacrament doth necessarily depend of the intention of the Minister so that they holde it to be no sacrament if the Minister haue not Intentionem faciendi quod facit ecclesia A full purpose and intent in ministring the Sacrament to doe that which the Church doth that is to consecrate the elements and to make a Sacrament Trident. concil sess 7. canon 11. Bellarm. cap. 27. So that by this rule if the Ministers intention be not wholy vpō the busines he hath in hand it shall be no Sacrament Argum. If the Ministers intention were not necessary to make a sacrament when it chaunceth that the gospell is read at the table by a Minister there being both bread and wine set before them and he in reading saith This is my body and This is my blood straightwaies all that bread wine should be consecrate and become a sacrament but because his intention is wanting it is none Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. But what if the Minister should haue a fantastical conceite and intent as he readeth to consecrate all the bread wine vpon the table then it should seeme by your rule that it must needs be a sacrament which were euen as absurd a thing as the other 2. There are other lets impediments from hauing a sacrament at the table thē the intention of the minister being wanting or kept back for the elements are not consecrated nor the Sacrament made by the bare pronouncing of the words but the whole institutiō ought to be obserued there must be eating drinking taking and doing al in the remēbrāce of the death of Christ there must be distributing receiuing inuocatiō thākesgiuing the whole action in the sacramēt is the cōsecration therof these things thē being wāting there can be no Sacrament The Protestants IF the Sacrament be administred aright according to the institution of Christ whatsoeuer the Minister be howsoeuer affected be he neuer so prophane in his hart without any godly purpose or intention yet to the worthie receiuer it ceaseth not to be a Sacrament Caluin in antidot concil Tridentin sess 7. canon 11. Argum. 1. The word of God with what intention soeuer it be preached yet may haue his effect and worke faith in the hearer So Christ be preached saith S. Paul whether vnder pretence or sincerely I therein ioy Philip. 1.18 Ergo the Sacraments also may haue their efficacie without the intent of the Minister argum Lutheri Argu. 2. If the effect of the Sacrament consisteth vpon the intention of the Minister then should euery man be vncertaine whether any thing be wrought in him or he haue receiued any benefit by the Sacrament because he knoweth not the intent of another mans hart and so should he be depriued of the spirituall comfort which he might reape by the Sacrament Caluin Augustine saith Sacramentum Baptismi tam sacrum est vt nec homicida vel ebrioso ministrante polluatur The Sacrament of Baptisme is so holy that it cannot either by a murtherer or drunken person ministring it be defiled And I pray you is it not like to be a good intention that should enter into the harts of such lewd and wicked men Therfore without any good intention euen by the hands of such may the Sacraments be giuen THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER THE Sacraments be seales of the promises of God The Papistes error 91 THey vtterly deny that the Sacraments be pledges and seales vnto vs of the promises of God or that therby our faith is nourished and confirmed and we assured of free remission of sinnes by the death of Christ neither that the sacraments were ordeyned for any such end Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram cap. 14. Argum. 1. If the sacraments confirme vnto vs the promises of God in his word then must they of necessitie be more euident and better known vnto vs then is the word of God for that which is lesse knowen and not so notorious cannot perswade vs of that which we haue better knowledge of But such are the Sacraments which are not so euident being called mysteries of religion as are the words of God Ergo Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. It is strange to see that you should now contend for the euidence and plainenes of Scripture which you haue locked vp from the people with no other pretence then because they are hard and obscure and dangerous ro be read of the simple Secondly you doe not well in comparing the word and the sacraments together for they cannot be diuorsed or separated for the word giueth life to the sacraments the sacraments againe giue liuely testimony and witnes to the truth of the word But let this be the question not whether the writing by it selfe and the seale by it selfe are of greatest force but whether an instrument with a seale be not of greater euidence and strength then without it So the word of God which doth but beate vpon the sence of hearing must of necessitie not in it self but in respect of vs worke more effectually being sealed by the sacraments where we receiue instruction by two other sences of ours the sight and the taste The Protestants THat the Sacraments are ordeined of God to be pledges and seales of his promises made vnto vs in Christ that as verily as the externall elements are applied to the outward man so our soules spiritually are refreshed with an assured hope of the remission of our sinnes in Christ and so the sacraments to be seales onely of the righteousnes of faith and not giuers or workers of grace in vs it is euident out of the Scripture Argum. 1. Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Rom. 4.1 Circumcision then was to Abraham a seale of the righteousnes of faith that is that he was iustified by faith Ergo so are all other sacraments Rhemist Indeede circumcision was a seale to Abraham for he was iust before and receiued this sacrament as a seale thereof afterward But it foloweth not that it was so in all for in Isaac his sonne and so consequently in the rest the Sacrament went before and iustice followed annot Rom. 4. sect 8. Ans. 1. The Apostle setteth forth the example of Abraham to shew
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.
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
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
in heauen and not vpon the earth 3. What a strange saying is this that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine lest men should abhorre to eate it for is it to be thought that Christ would command any vnseemely thing or contrary to humanitie How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled blood Act. 15. whē as by your doctrine they did eate dayly in their assemblies the raw flesh and blood of Christ And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule He that doth the truth sayth he commeth to the light that his deedes may be made manifest Iohn 3.21 But Christ now flieth the light shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine and wil not shew his flesh These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely changed and not the accidents The Protestants AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge and newly deuised so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable that in the Sacrament the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ the formes onely remaining An opinion contrary to scripture reason and common sense Argum. 1. As Christ said Math. 26. pointing to the bread This is my body so he sayth Iohn 6.35 I am the bread but in this place he was not changed into bread why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body for the speech is all one Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration is subiect to diuers changes and alterations and so likewise the wine for they may be boyled and made hot they may be infected with poyson for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope and Henry the 7. Emperour were poysoned with the Sacrament the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger the bread may putrifie and breed wormes Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaine still for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled it were great impietie Argum. Pet. Martyris Bellarmine answereth Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti in quo desinunt esse illae species God supplieth some other matter in the very instant when the formes begin to be changed Cap. 24. argum 6. Ans. Is not here good geare thinke you that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament that is the bread and wine which are alreadie consecrate and made the bodie of Christ God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wicked act Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted and so God shall make miracles for mice And why I pray you may not the substance of bread still remaine as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words Hoc est corpus meum the bread was transubstantiate before or after or while the words were spoken Before they will not say for the elements were not then consecrate nor after for thē Christs words This is my bodie had not been true in that instant when they were spoken Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking for then should it not haue been done all at once but successiuely and one part after another as the words were spoken one after another But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists that would haue it done all together Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect or substance wherein they should rest such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread the rednes and sweetnes of wine if bread be gone what is become of the roundnes and whitenes and so of the wine If a man aske what round or white thing is this or what red and sweete thing is this shewing the cup what shall be answered we cannot say it is bread or wine for there is none left And I am sure they will not say that the bodie of Christ is either round or white or such like and yet somewhat there must needes be that must take denomination of these accidents Argum. 5. You say the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse is in the Sacrament but that cannot be for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary this sacramentall flesh is made of bread Ergo it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse. Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue first either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing and so the wine was created of nothing which I am sure you will not graunt secondly or els there was a mixture of wine and water the one being mingled with the other which is likewise false for it was very good and perfect wine neither I thinke will you easily admit that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament Thirdly there remaineth but the third kind of change that is the conuersion of one substance into another as the water was changed into wine and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie if you will haue any chaunge at all and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie another from that which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine Lastly the diuersitie of opinions which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine Some doe hold that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present Others doe teach that there remaineth no more bread and wine but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ of each opinion there are three sorts First of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged 1. Some are of opinion that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together either for that instant onely or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie of which opinion are the Lutherans 2. Some there were that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ as was receiued of the faithfull and that part which the wicked receiued to be bread still 3. Others taught that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the
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
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
Apostle calleth their feasts of loue which they were wont to make after the receiuing of the Sacrament the Lords Supper coenas dominicas because they were made in the Lords houses which were called Dominicae he meaneth not the Sacrament Ans. First there were then no such distinct places as Churches and Oratories for the seruice of God which began to be built many yeeres after but they assembled together in their owne houses Secondly if their loue-feasts were called the Lords Suppers it would followe that they neuer had them but at night and that then also the Sacrament was celebrated about the time of their feasts which must be at the eeuentide But this I think they dare not affirme that they celebrated the Sacrament at night wherefore the Apostle cannot meane any other Supper but that which was instituted by Christ as it followeth vers 23. Augustine calleth it the Lords Supper Coenam manibus suis consecratam discipulis suis dedit His Supper being consecrated he gaue with his owne hands to his Disciples And although we sate not downe at that feast Ipsam coenam tamē fide quotidie manducamus Yet we eate that Supper daily by faith 2. The name Communion the Apostle also himselfe vseth he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The communion of the bodie of Christ 1. Corinth 10.16 so doth Augustine name it Communionem corporis Christi de ciuit Det. 20. cap. 9. 3. As for the names of Eucharist and Leiturgie we mislike them not being vnderstood in their own sense but because they are Greeke and not vnderstood of the people we vse them not The horrible sacrilege of the Masse is the cause also why we vse not that terme THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE MANNER OF saying and celebrating Masse The Papists IT is not necessiarie that the Masse or as we call it the Sacrament should be sayd or done in the vulgar and familiar speech but for the greater reuerence to be kept in the Latine tongue they say it is more conuenient and that the words of consecration should not be vttered in a loud and audible but in a soft and low voyce Bellarm. cap. 11.12 Argum. Christ for the space of three houres being so long vpon the Crosse vttered nothing in the hearing of the standers by but 7. short sentences Ergo in the sacrifice of the Masse it is not necessarie to vtter all in the hearing of the people Ibid. Ans. First they haue not proued by this example that the Priest should mutter and mumble to himselfe but the contrarie rather that either he must altogether hold his peace or els speake aloude vnlesse they can shew that Christ spake some words secretly to himselfe Secondly we must not fetch the right vse of the Sacrament of our owne heads from the example of Christs sacrifice vpon the Crosse but we are commanded to resort for direction to the institution in his last Supper 1. Corinth 11.23 The Protestants FIrst for the Sacrament or any other part of the seruice of God to be ministred in an vnknowne tongue is contrary to S. Pauls rule who would haue al things to be done in the Church to edifying and in such sort that the vnlearned might say Amen 1. Corinth 14.16 But the people cannot be edified by a language which they vnderstand not nor yet can say Amen vnto strange prayers But of this matter we haue alreadie elsewhere entreated more at large Secondly it is also contrarie to S. Pauls rule that the Priest should mutter to himselfe and not speake aloud in the hearing of the people for he saith Ye doe shew forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annuntiatis preach or declare the death of Christ so often as ye receiue it 1. Corinth 11.26 But they doe not annuntiare that is preach set forth and declare the death of Christ that speake onely to themselues Augustine sayth Populus cum episcopo orat quasi ad eius verba subscribens respondet Amen The people prayeth with their pastor and subscribing to his words say Amen But how can the people say Amen where nothing is heard or subscribe in their hearts vnto it THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE CEREMOnies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse The Papists error 138 SOme ceremonies goe before the celebration of the Masse and they are of such things as they haue alwaies in a readines for that impious seruice such are the vestiments and apparel of the priest the Albe Chesil Stole Dalmatike with such other Altars Altarclothes Corporasses Pixes Paxes Dishes Candlestickes Platters Censers water-pots all these and the like trumperie ought of right to be vsed in the sacrifice of the Masse the better to discerne the bodie of Christ Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 18. The Protestants FIrst for diuers causes we doe condemne and reiect these superstitious vsages of the Papists 1. Because of the superfluous vnnecessarie number of them fewer by a great deale may serue for the Communion to be kept after Christs institution neither doe we reade that Christ at his last Supper vsed any such who notwithstanding would not haue left out any thing requisite and needfull for the Sacrament 2. The superfluous and excessiue cost in making so many Church vessels of gold and siluer so many Masse garments of silke fine linnen embrodered with gold pearle precious stones was both an intolerable burthen to the Church at whose charge such things were prouided and a great deale more costly then became the simplicitie of the Gospell 3. Conuenient vessels and instruments which are necessarie for the administration of the Sacrament with other seemely ornaments as a decent couering for the Communion table a cleane and hansome vessell to keepe the wine a cup of siluer for the distribution cleane linnen napkins for the bread such instruments and ornaments of the Lords table we condemne not but vse them our selues yet none of them for such ends or purposes as they pretend to discerne the bodie of the Lord by them as though they were ordained to waite and attend vpon the bodily presence of Christ which they haue falsely imagined but we vse them for decencie and order sake and due reuerence which is to be yeelded to so great mysteries In the Apostles time they had no consecrated Altars but Communion tables 1. Cor. 10.21 neither is it like that they vsed vessels of gold or siluer in the Lords Supper when they had neither siluer nor gold in their purses Math. 10.9 Wherfore such things are not necessarie for the discerning of the Lords bodie The Papists 2. THere are other ceremonies which they obserue and vse in the very action it selfe and celebration of the Masse as the diuers gestures of the Priest to lift vp his eyes and cast them downe againe and to lift them vp the second the third time sometime to cast abroad his hands to close them againe to warble with his fingers to bow to bend to ducke to turne on
this side and on that now on the right hand againe on the left to sigh to smite vpon his breast to lift vp the Chalice and shew it to the people and set it downe againe as also the diuiding of the host into three parts which signifie three parts of the Church in heauen in earth and in purgatorie the rinsing of part thereof in wine and eating part drie the washing of his fingers before consecration kissing of the altar the patten the booke the paxe sprinkling of holy water censing of odors crossing the chalice the bread their mouth breast and face which signe of the crosse they make aboue twentie times in one Masse while Adde also vnto these their tedious yrksome songs the rude noyse and vnedifying sound of strange instruments and the whole course of their Masse musicke set forth in a strange language and endited to the honour of Saints All these superstitious rites with diuers more vaine vnfruitfull abominable they notwithstanding with force and maine defend and maintaine Bellarm lib. 2. de missa cap. 14.15 Concil Tridâ—ntin sess 22. caâ— 7. The Protestants 1. THis multitude of humane inuentions agreeth not with the institution of the Lords Supper for we reade not of any such kissing kneeling becking bowing or the like ridiculous gestures to haue been vsed when our Sauiour instituted the Supper nor afterwards by the Apostles to haue been practised wherefore wee contenting our selues with the plaine institution of Christ doe worthily reiect all such toyes 2. Most of these gestures are impious and tend to idolatrie in the adoration of bread and wine which are but creatures and they are all friuolous and hypocriticall stealing away true deuotion from the heart and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the bodie Augustine sayth very well Corpus genibus flexis prosternis collum curuas in oratione video vbi iaciat corpus sed quaero vbi volitet animus Thou bowest the knee bendest thy bodie in prayer stretchest out thy necke I see where thy bodie lieth but what is become of thy soule 3. Concerning Church songs and Musicke Augustine thus writeth Sâ—briè Psallimus in Ecclesia diuina cantica Prophetarum We sing treatably and soberly in the Church the diuine songs of the Prophets Two conditions he requireth first that we sing holy Psalmes taken out of the scriptures Secondly that they be sung treatably and distinctly Etiam illic sayth he si sonum non sensum libido audiendi desideret improbatur Euen in good songs if we follow the sound not the sense it is to be discommended but in popish songs neither of these conditions is kept for both the dittie for the most part is idolatrous stuffed with inuocation and adoration of Saints and the note is so diuided and drawne out in length that nothing can be vnderstood THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE FORME OF THE Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon partly of such things as are rehearsed before and after the Canon THE FIRST PART OF THE PRAIERS WHICH goe before the Canon of the Masse WE doe not vtterly condemne whatsoeuer is sayd or sung in their Leiturgie or Masse for as they haue their introite so we doe bid the people after due preparation in our Communions to draw neere We haue also our Confiteor a confession of sinnes to be said before the Communion Other formes also which haue been vsed of ancient time we doe not refuse as Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you Kyrieeleson Lord haue mercie of vs Sursum corda Lift vp your hearts with Alleluia praised be God and Sanctus Sanctus holy holy and Gloria in excelsis Glorie be to God on high the preface also to the Communion Verè dignum iustum est It is meete right and our bounden duetie And we vse also the Lords praier after the distribution These formes we mislike not vsing the same our selues which notwithstanding we borrowe not from them but from the ancient and purer ages of the Church But the corruptions additions immutations which are vsed by them in these prefaces to the Masse we doe vtterly condemne as their introite and confiteor is stuft full of idolatry and inuocation of Saints their Kyrieeleson is 9. times repeated in an vnknown toung Eleuation and adoration was brought in by Pope Honorius anno 1222. the Agnus was deuised by Pope Sergius ann 700. the Pax by Innocentius plura apud Foxum p. 1403. THE SECOND PART OF THE Canon of the Masse The Papists 1. FIrst the forme of their Masse they haue they say by tradition from the Apostles error 139 Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 22. The Protestants THeir owne authors doe testifie that euery patch of their Masse was thrust in by Popes later then the Apostles as by Leo the 1. Gregory the 1. Gregory the 3. Innocentius the 3. Honorius the 3. with many other yea Gregory the 1. confesseth that one Scholasticus made the most part of the Canon Ergo it was not deuised by the Apostles Bellarmine answereth that Gregory setteth not downe any one man by this name Scholasticus but meaneth generally some notable learned man and in this sense S. Peter saith he which was the author of the Canon may be called Scholasticus Bellarm. cap. 19. Ans. This deuise of the Iesuite is rather to be laughed at then to be confuted who euer heard before that S. Peter and the other Apostles were Scholastici Schoolemen what is this els but to set the spirite of God to schoole in saying that the Apostles being men endued with the holy Ghost were brought vp in Schooles Againe Gregory findeth fault with the said Scholasticus that in composing the Canon he would put in his own praiers and leaue out the Lords praier but if this Scholasticus had beene Peter I think Gregory would not haue beene so bolde as to haue rebuked him The Papists 2. THe Canon of the Masse they say is perfect and absolute voide of all error and therefore not to be changed or abrogated Concil Trident. sess 22. can 6. Bellarm. cap. 21. The Protestants BVt we on the contrary side more truly and agreeably to Scripture doubt not to say that there can be nothing more corrupt abominable fuller of all impiety heresie lying then is their idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse as it shall now more particularly appeare by the collection of the seuerall errors THE ERRORS AND BLASPHEMIES that are to be found in the Canon of the Masse 1. THe Priest speaking of the bread and wine thus saith Which we offer vnto thee for thy holy Catholike Church and againe afterward Which we offer for the redemption of their soules What great blasphemie is this to offer bread wine for the redemption of the Church for the which Christ in great loue offered vp himselfe 2. The Priest saith Worshipping the memoriall of the Virgine But Christ instituted the Sacrament to be kept in remembrance of himselfe and not for the worship of Saints 3. By
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
one place for it is as proper to the bodie of Christ to be seene and felt as to be in one place at once 4. Bellarmine granteth being vrged with that argument that Christs soule was in Paradise after his passion and therefore not in hell he confesseth that it was not impossible that Christs soule should be in two places at once Lib. 4. de Christi anima cap. 15. Yea he sayth that Christ may if he will turne al the world into bread and the bread so made conuert into his flesh and so his bodie may be as well in euery place of the world as now it is in the Eucharist Lib. 3. de incarnat cap. 11. What great oddes now I pray you is there between the opinion of the Vbiquitaries and of the Papists but that they say that the bodie of Christ is euery where ordinarily by the power of the Godhead the other say his flesh is in many places at once by a miracle The one sayth Christs bodie actually is in euery place the other that it may be if Christ will THE SECOND PART WHETHER OVR SAVIOVR Christ did verily encrease in knowledge and wisedome as he was man The Papists CHrist they say in the very first creation of his soule and from his conception error 98 was endued with the fulnes of al wisedome grace and knowledge neither can he be sayd properly to haue encreased in any of these gifts 1. Christ was anoynted from his mothers womb and then the spirit of God was vpon him for the Angels that appeared to the shepheards call him Christ Luk. 2.11 And Iohn sayth The word was made flesh full of grace and truth 1. vers 11. Therefore euen then he had receiued all abundance of grace and knowledge Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4.2 Ans. 1. We grant that our Sauiour was the Iesus the Christ euen from his natiuitie not that thē he actually straightwaies entred into those offices or receiued plenarie power of all the graces of the spirit but because he was euen from his mothers wombe consecrated and appoynted thereunto for it no more followeth because he is called Christ that he then had his actuall anoynting then that because he was called Iesus from his natiuitie that he had actually performed our redemption The full anoynting of the spirit was fulfilled in his baptisme when the holy Ghost came downe in the likenes of a Doue and then beginning to preach in his first sermon at Nazareth he sheweth the accomplishment of the prophecie of Esay The spirite of the Lord is vpon me c. Luk. 4.18 2. Neither doe the words of Iohn import so much as they gather The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst vs full of grace and truth which is not to be vnderstood of the very first assuming of the flesh but of the dwelling of the word in the flesh amongst vs and so appeared to be full of grace and truth Argum. 2. Christ was the Sonne of God in his very incarnation and euen then was the humanitie perfectly vnited to the Godhead therefore immediatly vpon this vnion and coniunction of both natures in one person must needes follow the fulnes of grace in the humane nature Againe Adam was created in perfect wisedome therefore much more the second Adam Bellar. cap. 4. Ans. 1. If presently vpon the vniting of the two natures together it had been necessarie that the humane nature of Christ should haue receiued whatsoeuer by the presence of the diuine nature was to be conferred vpon it then Christ straight waies must also both in bodie and soule haue been glorified for it can not be denied but that as the bodie of Christ after the resurrection receiued more glorie then before so also his soule being the other part of his humanitie was more glorified By this it is euident that the humanitie receiued not at once the fulnes of all grace and glorie in the first vniting of the Godhead 2. Adam was created perfect in bodie and soule and if Christ therefore ought to haue the fulnes of the gifts of the soule in his creation as Adam had why ought he not also to haue had a perfect bodie as Adam was created withall Wherefore as it was no dishonour to Christ to grow vp in stature of bodie so neither was it to encrease in the gifts of the mind The Protestants THat Christ was euen from his birth and first conception perfect God and perfect man we doe assuredly beleeue and that in the very incarnation the diuine and humane nature were vnited together Also we graunt that the Lord Christ might haue created to himselfe a soule full of all wisedome and knowledge as he might haue made himselfe a perfect bodie but seeing it pleased him to bee borne of a woman and first to dwell in the bodie of an infant wee doubt not to say as the scripture teacheth vs that he also Encreased in wisedome 1. He was in all things like to his brethren onely sinne excepted Heb. 2.17.4.15 Ergo he grew vp and encreased in knowledge according to the manner of men which may be done without sinne 2. The scripture sayth plainly which cannot lye that Iesus grew vp and encreased in wisedome and stature Luk. 2.52 And lest they should answere that this encreasing was onely in the opinion of men it followeth And in fauour with God and men he increased in wisedome stature and fauour not onely in shew before men but in truth before God and as verily and indeed he grew vp in stature so also in wisedome 3. Christ testifieth of himselfe That neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man as he is man knoweth of the day or houre of his comming to iudgement but the father onely Mark 13.31 Ergo Christ as hee was man had not at once all fulnes of knowledge Bellarmine thus expoundeth this place Filius dicitur nescire quia non sciebat ad dicendum alijs The Sonne is sayd not to knowe because he knewe it not to reueale it to others but to keepe it secret to himselfe Ans. First then by the same reason the Angels doe knowe it also but that they are charged not to declare it to men for the text sayth that neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man knoweth the time Secondly in this sense also the father might be sayd not to knowe it for neither hath he reuealed it to any Lastly although we doe affirme according to the scripture that the child Iesus did increase in the gifts of the mind as he did in the stature of his bodie yet we do put great difference between him and all other children that euer came into the world for as his conception birth were not after the cōmon manner for he was cōceiued by the holy Ghost brought forth without trauel and labour as August sayth Nec concipiendo libidinē nec pariendo perpessa est dolorē In conceauing she felt no carnal desire in bearing she suffered no payne So likewise